M\£dK"-?£«RC* 


ftife 


AV  0i  tut  mnhsimt  j. 


PRINCETON,    N.    J. 


\ 


Presented  by  Mr.  Samuel  Agnew  of  Philadelphia,  Pa. 


Agncw  Coll.  on  Baptism,  No. 


BAPTISM 


IN  ITS 


MODE  AND  SUBJECTS. 


BY 

P.    II.   MELL, 

Professor  of  Greek  and  Latin  in  Mercer  University,  Ga. 


SECOND  EDITION. 


CHARLESTON: 
SOUTHERN  BAPTIST  PUBLICATION  SOCIETY, 

NO.      229     KING. STREET, 

1  8  g  4  . 

JAMES,  WILLIAMS  &  GITSLVGER. 


Entered,  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1853,  by  the 

SOUTHERN  BAPTIST  PUBLICATION  SOCIETY, 
In  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States,  for  the  Dis- 
trict of  South  Carolina. 


DEDICATION. 


TO      THE 

ANTIOCH  BAPTIST  CHURCH  AND  CONGREGATION, 

IN 

OGLETHORPE  COUNTY,  GEORGIA, 
THIS  VOLUME 

*S   RESPECTFULLY   DEDICATE*}, 

BY  THEIR  AFFECTIONATE 

PASTOR. 


PREFACE. 


This  publication  owes  its  existence  to  the  following  circum- 
stances:— During  the  month  of  August  last,  the  Lord  blessed 
the  church  at  Antioch,  of  whieli  I  am  the  pastor,  with  a  season 
of  refreshing  from  his  presence.  During  its  progress,  we  had, 
for  nearly  two  weeks,  daily  occasion  to  administer  the  ordinance 
of  baptism.  As  is  my  custom,  I  availed  myself  of  the  opportunity 
afforded,  to  address  the  people  at  the  water's  side  on  the  subject 
— making  some  nine  or  ten  addresses  in  all,  and  going  over,  in  a 
hasty  and  superficial  way,  nearly  all  the  references  to  the  or- 
dinance in  the  Scriptures.  These  remaks,  as  was  to  have  been 
expected,  created  some  little  interest  in  the  minds  of  those  op- 
posed to  them. 

Within  a  mile  of  Antioch  is  situated  a  Methodist  Meeting 
House,  called  "  Centre."  The  next  "  Quarterly  Conference," 
appointed  the  very  estimable  gentleman,  Rev.  Win.  J.  Parks, 
the  Presiding  Elder,  to  preach  a  sermon  on  Baptism  at  "  Centiv" 
Meeting  House.  It  was  never  publicly  avowed,  I  believe,  but 
it  was  very  generally  understood,  that  it  was  to  be  a  reply  t<  > 
my  remarks  at  the  water's  side.  After  giving  very  general  pub- 
licity to  the  appointment  in  all  the  surrounding  region,  the  ser- 
mon was  preached  to  a  large  congregation,  on  Thursday,  the 
29th  of  October.  I  attended,  and  received  all  that  courtesy 
A* 


VI  PREFACE. 

which  is  due  from  one  gentleman  and  Christian  to  another. 
And  it  gives  me  pleasure  to  testify  to  the  very  excellent  spirit 
which  my  Methodist  brethren  have,  as  far  as  I  know,  manifested 
in  this  quasi  controversy. 

On  the  next  two  Lord's  days  succeeding,  I  preached  at  Anti- 
och,  taking  up  baptism  as  a  subject,  and  replying  to  the  argu- 
ments of  Mr.  Parks  and  others.  There  I  expected  the  matter 
to  rest,  as  far,  at  least,  as  I  was  concerned.  On  the  6th  of 
November,  my  church,  by  a  unanimous  vote,  requested  me  to 
write  out  my  remarks  for  publication,  and  served  me  through 
their  committee,  with  the  following  formal  request : 

"Olethorpe  Co.,  Ga.,  Nov.  6th.  1852. 
Rev.  P.  K  Mell 

Dear  brother: — At  a  regular  Conference  of  the  church  at 
Antioch,  the  imdersigned  committee  were  appointed  to  solicit 
from  you,  for  publication,  a  copy  of  your  very  instructive  dis- 
courses delivered  at  that  place  on  the  subject  of  baptism. 

"  Your  compliance  with  this  request  will  prove  a  source  of 
gratification  to  your  immediate  brethren,  and  will,  we  doubt 
not,  be  productive  of  lasting  good  to  the  Baptist  denomination 
generally,  &c.  Signed  by  "William  Edwards,  A.  J.  Lumpkin,  W. 
Thos.  Edwards,  John  A.  Bell  and  Marshall  "W.  Edwards,  Com- 
mittee." 


Not  having  a  reason  which  the  church  would  consider  satis- 
factory, for  declining,  I  consented  to  write  out  my  sermons  ac- 
cording to  their  request.  At  first,  I  hoped  I  could  compress 
them  within  the  compass  of  a  pamphlet  of  medium  size ;  but, 
as  I  wrote,  the  subject  expanded  under  my  hands,  so  that  I  had 
very  soon  to  abandon  this  idea  in  despair.  Besides,  as  the  sub- 
ject on  which  I  was  writing  was  a  controverted  one,  I  very  soon 
became  convinced  that  if  I  published'  at  all,  prudence  would 
require  that  I  should  go  into  it  in  detail,  and  guard  it  at  every 


PREFACE.  Vll 

point ;  for  what  advantage  will  a  wall,  built  never  so  irnpreg- 
nably  in  front,  be  to  one,  if  his  enemy  have  free  and  unob- 
structed access  to  him  in  the  rear?  I,  therefore,  resigned  myself, 
with  all  the  philosophy  I  could  command,  to  the  inevitable 
necessity  that  was  upon  me,  to  write  a  book  on  baptism — as  well 
as  I  could.  And  I  have  done  it.  It  is  customary,  I  believe,  for 
writers  to  beg  pardon  of  their  readers — at  least  to  apologize  for 
publishing  a  book,  especially  on  this  subject  of  baptism.  Let 
the  above,  then,  be  received  as  my  apology.  If  it  be  not  satis- 
factory, I  cannot  help  it — now. 

Besides  preaching  on  the  subject,  Mr.  Parks  distributed  in  our 
community,  a  number  of  works,  large  and  small,  on  baptism,  the 
most  conspicuous  of  which  was  a  new  work  by  Dr.  Summers,  of 
Charleston.*  All  these,  of  course,  I  had  to  attempt  to  answer; 
and  the  reader  will  find  that  I  have  done  so,  though  the  name  of 
Dr.  Summers  alone  is  mentioned.  Besides  these,  I  have  con- 
sulted all  the  standard  pedobaptist  authors  whose  works  I  could 
get  access  to ;  among  the  rest,  Drs.  Woods  and  Miller,  of  this 
country,  and  Dr.  Wardlaw  of  Europe — and  have  made  their 
arguments  the  basis  of  my  replies. 

My  desire  has  been  to  furnish  an  exposition  of  the  subject  that 
the  vast  body  of  the  people  can  appreciate ;  and  I  have  endea- 
vored to  adapt  the  argument  that  is  based  upon  Greek  criticisms 
even,  to  the  apprehension  of  the  common-sense  reader.  And  I 
beg  the  unlearned  not  to  be  disheartened  when  they  encounter 
crooked  Greek  words.  Let  them  go  bravely  on,  and  who  knows 
what  reward  they  may  get  for  their  pains  ? 

It  will  be  observed  that  I  do  not  hesitate  to  seek  our  oppo- 
nents in  all  the  little  irrelevant  corners  in  which  they  have  hid 
themselves,  and  have  endeavored  to  prove  everything  which 
they  have  demanded,  however  unreasonably,  at  my  hands.  Our 

*  Baptism.  A  Treatise  on  the  nature,  perpetuity,  subjects,  administra- 
tion, mode  and  use  of  the  initiating  ordinance  of  the  Christian  Church. 
With  an  Appendix.  By  Thomas  0.  Summers.  Richmond,  Va.,  and  Louis- 
ville, Kv.  ;  Published  by  John  Earlv,  for  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South,  1S52. 


Vlll  PREFACE. 

writers  have  generally  contented  themselves,  in  such  cases,  with 
saying,  the  requirement  is  unreasonable,  or,  the  proof  is  implied 
already,  or,  the  burden  of  proof  rests  on  somebody  else,  and 
they  are  sustained  in  their  course  by  the  principles  of  logic. 
But,  unfortunately,  the  large  majority  of  readers  are  not  logi- 
cians, and  cannot  tell  upon  whom  the  burden  of  proof  lies.  I 
have  adapted  my  argument,  therefore,  not  so  much  to  the  rules 
of  logic  as  to  the  condition  and  the  wants  of  the  great  mass  for 
whom  I  write.  Whether  I  have  succeeded  or  not>  is  a  question 
for  others  to  decide,  not  me. 
Mercer  University,  Ga.,  Jan.,  1853. 


ADVERTISEMENT 

TO    THE 

SECOND    EDITION. 


Tms  edition  follows  so  soon  after  the  first  that  I  have  not  had 
the  benefit  of  any  criticisms,  either  from  opponents  or  friends  ; 
and  the  subject  is  too  fresh  in  my  mind  for  me  to  be  qualified 
to  criticise  myself.  Besides  correcting  the  errors  of  the  press, 
I  have  therefore  made  but  few  alterations,  and  those  chiefly 
verbal. 

Mercer  University,  June,  1853. 


z>. 


CONTENTS. 


**^**1£^ 


Introduction. 


PART  FIRST. 


THE    ACT    OF  BAPTISM,       .  .  .7 

Chap.  I. — Immersion  Essential  to  Baptism,           .                 .  8 

Sec.  i.  The  Meaning  of  the  Word,           .             .  ib 

1.  The  Primary  Meaning  of  the  Greek 
Word  to  Immerse,  proved  by  the  Tes- 
timony of  the  Lexicons;,            .              .  ib 

2.  The  same  Proved  by  Scripture  Usage,  10 
Baptizo  shown  not  to  mean  to  Purify,  12 

3.  The  word  Baptizo  means  to  Immerse, 
and  nothing  else,  .  .  .15 

Sec.  n.  Objections  to  the  Definition  of  the  Word 

answered,  .  .  .  .18 

1.  Do  not  Words  frequently  change  their 
significations  ?  .  .  .19 

2.  Is  it  not  ridiculous  that  Ignorant  Bap- 
tists should  speak  so  confidently,  when 
opposed  by  the  preponderance  of  learn- 
ing in  the  religious  world?       .  .     20 

3.  The  Lexicons  give  more  than  one 
Meaning,  .  .  .  .     ib 

4.  Examples  of  Greek  Passages  where  the 
Word  is  assumed  to  have  a  different 
Meaning,  .  .  .  .27 


X  CONTENTS. 

Chap.  IL — Baptism  is  Immersion  :  proved  from  examples  of 

its  Administration  in  tiie   New  Testament, 

where  details  are  given,      .  .  .45 

Seo.  i.  The  Baptism  of  the  Saviour,        .  .      ib 

The  Greek  Prepositions  en,  eis,  and  apo,     49 

Sec.  n.  John's  Baptism,  Christian  Baptism,  61 

Sec.  hi.  Baptism  of  the  Ethiopian  Eunuch,  80 

1.  Objections   to   the  Immersion  of   the 
Eunuch  answered,         .  .  .81 

2.  The  Greek  Prepositions  els  and  ck  are 
not  properly  rendered,  .  .     82 

3.  Not  a  supply  of  Water  in  the  Desert,      93 

4.  No  mention  made  of  a  change  of  ap- 
parel,   .  .  .  .  .94 

Chap.  III. — The  instances  of  baptism  where  details  are 

NOT    GIVEN,  CONSISTENT    WITH    THE     MEANING    OF 
THE  WORD,  .  .  .  .  .97 

Dr.  Summers's  Inconsistency  in  not  denying  the 

Validity  of  Immersion,  .  .  ib 

His  Courtesy,        .  .  .  .  .98 

Sec.  i.  Enon  near  to  Salim.     The  three  thousand 

on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  .  .102 

Objections  to  their  Immersion  answered,       ib 

1.  Not  Time  Enough,         .  .  .104 

2.  Not  Water  enough  in  Jerusalem,  .  108 
8.  The  subjects  were  without  change  of 

Raiment,  .  .  .114 

Sec.  ii.  The  Baptism  of  Cornelius,  .  .115 

The  Baptism  of  Lydia,      .  .  .117 

Baptism  of  the  Jailor,       .  .  .120 

Baptism  of  Saul  of  Tarsus,  .  .123 

Chap.  IV. — The  Import  of  the  Ordinance,  .  .   127 

Objections  to  the  Import  answered,       .  .   128 

1.  The  Ordinance  is  Emblematical  of  the  Spirit's 

•  Operations,      .  .  .  .  .131 

2.  It  conforms  in  mod*;  to  the  mode  of  the  Spir- 
it's Operations,  .  .  .  .132 

3.  Christ  was  not  Buried,  .  .  .   141 

4.  The  Burial  of  Christ  was  of  no  Importance,       ib 

5.  The  Burial  of  Christ,  if  important,  not  so 
much  so  as  his  Death,  .  .  .  142 

6.  Immersion  does  not  properly  represent  the 
Burial  of  Christ,          .  .  .  .  U3 


CONTENTS.  XI 

Chap.   V. — The  metaphorical  uses  of  the  word  Baptism 
snow  that  its  form  is  Immersion  and  nothing 

ELSE,      ......    14-1 

1.  "I have  a  baptism  to  be  baptized  with,"  .      ib 

2.  Those  baptized  "have  put  on  Christ,"  .  145 

3.  The  Israelites  at  the  Red  Sea,  .  .      ib 

4.  Salvation  by  Baptism  and  by  Noah's  Ark,  .  154 

5.  Baptism  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  .  .155 

6.  Other  Metaphorical  allusions.  .  .156 

imm 

Chap.  VL — Corroborative  Arguments — the  Greek  Church,  158 

Testimony  of  Ecclesiastical  History,      .  .      ib 

Chap.  VIL — General  Objections  answered,  .  .  163 

1.  Modes  are  not  Essential,      .  .  ib 

2.  Immersion  is  an  Inconvenient  rite, .  .  165 

3.  Immersion  Impossible  in  Some  Places  Be- 
cause of  Cold,  and  in  others,  because  of 
Scarcity  of  Water,  ....  166 

4.  Immersion  Sometimes  Dangerous,  and  Fee- 
ble Ministers  cannot  administer  it,  .  .168 

5.  It  is  an  Indecent  Rite,  .  .  .171 

6.  The  Baptists  Rebaptize  because  they  believe 
Theirs  are  the  only  Churches,  .  .1*73 

7.  Restricted  Communion,        .  .  .  191 

8.  The  Baptists  make  Baptism  a  Saving  Ordi- 
nance, .  .  .  .  .195 

PART  SECOND. 

The  Subjects  of  Baptism,  .  .  199 

Chap.  I. — No  Precept  in  the  Scriptures  for  the  Baptism 

of  Infants,         .....  201 

Sec.  i.  The  Commission  affords  no  Warrant,        .      ib 

Objections  answered,         .  .  .  207 

1.  The  Disciples  understood  the  Commis- 
sion according  to  what  they  knew  of 
Jewish  Prosel}7te  Baptism,         .  .      ib 

2.  We  must  put  ourselves  into  the  Posi- 
tion of  the  Disciples  as  Jews,  .  .  208 

3.  If  Infants  are  not  provided  for  in  the 
Commission,  then  they  are  not  saved,     209 

4.  The  Commission  does  not  Forbid  In- 
fant Baptism,    ....  212 


Xii  CONTENTS. 

Seo.  n.  Passages  of  Scripture  usually  Relied  on  to 

Prove  it,  .....  214 
Mark  x.  13-16,  ....  215 
Inconsistency  of  Pedobaptists,      .  .218 

Answer  to  the  Argument  from  a  Calvinist  22© 
Answer  to  the  Argument  from  an  Armin- 
ian,  ......  2J6 

Sec.  m.  Passages  Relied  on,  continued,  1  Cor.  vii. 

14 ;  Acts  ii.  39  .  .  .  233 

Chap.   II. — No  Example  in  tue  Scriptures  of  the  Baptism 

of  any  others  than  Believers,  .  .  236 

Sec.  i.  Household  Baptisms,       .  .  .      ib 

Household  of  Cornelius,  .  .239 

Household  of  Lydia,       .  .  240 

Sec  ii.  Household  Baptisms  continued,  the  jailor,  250" 

Chap.  III. — Infant  Baptism  cannot  be  sustained  by  Infer- 
ence and  Analogy,      ....  257 

Sec.  i.  Female  Communion,        .  .  ib 

Sec.  ii.  Infant  Baptism  not  Founded  on  the  Na- 
tural Relations  between  Pious  Parents 
and  their  Children,  .  .  .  264 

Sec.  hi.  The  Abrahamic  Covenant  Furnishes  no 

Support  to  Infant  Baptism,         .  .  274 

Sec.  iv.  The  "  Jewish  Church"  and  the  Christian 
Church  not  the  same  under  different 
Dispensations,      ....  288 

Chap.  IV. — The     Testimony    of  Eoclesiasiucal    History 
shows  that  Infant  Baptism  was  not  insti- 
tuted by  Christ,  ....  299 
Conclusion          .  .  .  .  .303 


f 

■ 


<fc 


INTRODUCTION. 


It  is,  by  general  consent,  in  the  Evangelical  Christian 
world,  agreed,  that  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  has  instituted 
but  two  ordinances,  which  are  to  be  perpetually  observed 
by  his  churches — Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper.  These 
originate  not  in  the  nature  of  things,  but  owe  their  ex- 
istence to  the  will,  and  depend  for  their  validity  upon 
the  authority,  of  the  King  in  Zion.  Without  a  dissent- 
ing voice,  all  the  more  important  Evangelical  denomin- 
ations in  this  country  maintain  that  it  is  the  duty  of 
every  spiritual  subject  of  Christ  to  be  baptized  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost ;  but,  unhappily,  when  they  come  to  decide  upon 
the  form  and  the  design  of  this  ordinance,  they  are  sadly 
at  variance.  This  disagreement  is  not  to  be  ascribed, 
hastily,  to  a  want  of  honesty  in  those  who  differ  from 
us :  for  from  whence  did  we  obtain  infallibility,  and  who 
has  conferred  upon  us  the  right  "to  judge  another  man's 
servant  ?"  And  yet  Jt  cannot,  without  irreverence,  be 
said  that  the  source  of  difference  can  be  traced  to  the 
obscurity  of  the  terms  in  which  Christ  has  instituted 


2  INTRODUCTION. 

his  ordinance,  nor  to  the  unintelligibility  of  the  record 
which  the  Holy  Spirit  has  given  of  the  manner  in  which 
it  was  administered  by  his  immediate  disciples.  We 
cannot,  without  dishonoring  the  Saviour,  suppose,  either 
that  he  did  not  have  a  clear  conception  of  the  design 
and  form  of  his  ordinance,  or  that  he,  inadvertently  or 
otherwise,  made  use  of  terms,  which,  when  interpreted 
according  to  the  common  rules  of  language,  convey  any 
other  than  the  idea  which  he  intended  ;  and  the  Scrip- 
tures, in  all  that  pertain  to  Christian  duty,  and  to  the 
way  of  salvation,  are  so  plain,  that  any  humble  inquirer 
after  the  will  of  God,  who  uses  diligence,  can,  in  these 
respects,  be  "  perfect,  thoroughly  furnished  unto  all  good 
works."  Why,  then,  should  there  be  such  a  difference 
of  opinion  among  those  who,  in  a  judgment  of  charity, 
are  equally  honest  ? 

Originally,  doubtless,  all  the  errors  and  divisions  among 
the  professed  followers  of  Christ,  had  their  source  in  the 
ignorance  and  wickedness  that  existed  in  the  so-called 
Church.  At  the  present  time,  however,  and  in  this 
country,  men  find  the  Christian  world  divided  into  differ- 
ent sects,  all  of  whom  afford  evidence,  more  or  less  con- 
clusive, of  possessing  the  favor  of  God,  and  the  spirit  of 
Christ.  To  one  or  another  of  these,  when  they  obtain 
hope  in  the  Saviour,  they  unite  themselves,  often  with- 
out inquiry,  influenced  by  taste,  by  association,  by  the 
bias  of  early  education,  or  by  the  fact  that  the  instru- 
mentalities of  that  particular  communion  have  been 
blessed  to  their  conversion ;  and  afterwards,  should  this 
controverted  subject  of  baptism,  or  any  other,  be  brought 


INTRODUCTION.  3 

to  their  notice,  they  meet  it  almost  of  necessity  with  a 
bias,  however  unconsciously,  in  favor  of  the  views  of  their 
party,  and  with  a  desire  and  confident  expectation  of  suc- 
cess to  their  cause.     Should  they  be  induced  to  enter 
upon  the  investigation,  they  do  so  not  as  the  judge,  who, 
identified  with  neither  party,  holds  the  scales  of  justice 
even,  and  gives  the  preponderance  to  the  testimony  which 
is  most  weighty,  but  as  the  advocate,  who,  hired  to  con- 
duct to  a  successful  issue  the  cause  of  his  client,  gives 
to  the  showing  on  the  other  side  only  attention  enough 
to  qualify  him  to  invalidate  and  refute  it.     Having  com- 
mitted themselves  first,  they  either  feel  called  on  to  de- 
fend, as  well  as  they  can,  the  opinions  and  practices  with 
which  they  became  connected  originally,  without  in- 
quiry, or  refuse  to  investigate  the  subject  at  all.     Thus 
many  good  men,  when  they  speak  or  write  on  any  con- 
troverted subject — and  with  none  is  this  more  true  than 
with  this  subject  of  baptism — lay  themselves  open,  Avith 
reason,  to  the  charge  of  wresting  the  Scriptures,  at  the 
same  time  that  they,  through  the  deceitfulness  of  the 
human  heart,  are  firmly  convinced  that  they  are  reason- 
ing with  fairness,  and  deferring  to  the  authority  of  God's 
word.     This   supposition,  by  way   of  solution   of  the 
question,  I  make,  not  with   the  design  to  fix  it  as  a 
charge  upon  those  who  differ  from  me :  for  it  becomes 
me,  and  those  with  whom  I  act,  to  see  well  to  it,  that 
we  are  not  influenced  by  the  same  motives. 

Nor  is  it  a  matter  of  little  importance,  whether  we 
follow  literally  the  instructions  of  the  Master.  All  of 
Christ's  institutions  are  essential   to  the  purposes  for 


4  INTRODUCTION. 

which  they  were  intended,  and  nothing  can  be  adopted 
as  a  substitute  for  them.  AVhen  we  misrepresent  or 
misapply  them,  either  wilfully  or  through  ignorance,  we 
not  only  lose  the  blessings  which  they  were  designed  to 
convey  to  us,  but  we  sin  against  God,  and  tend,  by  our 
course,  to  produce  and  perpetuate  divisions  among  those 
who  ought  to  be  of  one  mind,  having  "  one  Lord,  one 
faith,  one  baptism."  The  Apostle  Paul  commended  the 
Corinthians  for  their  literal  observance  of  the  institu- 
tions of  Christ :  "  Now  I  praise  you,  brethren,  that  ye 
remember  me  in  all  things,  and  keep  the  ordinances  as 
I  delivered  them  to  you."  (1  Cor.,  ii.  2.)  And  never 
will  the  sad  divisions  among  Evangelical  Christians  be 
healed,  until  they  consent  to  obey  literally  the  com- 
mands of  Christ,  and  to  follow  implicitly  the  inspired 
examples  that  are  recorded  for  their  instruction. 

God  overrules  the  divisions  among  his  people,  as  he 
does  the  wrath  of  man,  for  his  glory,  and  for  the  ad- 
vancement of  his  cause.  But,  surely,  it  is  not  necessary 
to  prove  that  these  divisions  themselves,  implying,  as 
they  do,  the  existence  of  error,  cannot  be  pleasing  in  his 
sight.  Never  can  the  hosts  of  God  expect  with  confi- 
dence to  possess  the  territory  of  the  aliens,  so  long  as 
they  themselves  are  "  divided,  discordant  and  belliger- 
ent." Christ  prayed  the  Father,  (John  17,)  that  his 
people  might  be  one,  and  that,  in  keeping  with  unani- 
mity the  word  which  he  had  given  them,  they  might 
convince  the  world  of  his  divine  mission.  In  like  man- 
ner, all  his  followers  should  pray  for  Christian  unity, 
and  towards  this,  as  one  important  result,  their  labors 


INTRODUCTION.  5 

should  constantly  tend.  This  desirable  object  is  to  be 
attained,  if  at  all,  not  by  harsh  epithets  and  an  intoler- 
ant spirit — the  tendency  of  which  is  to  alienate — not 
by  entering  into  compromises  of  truth  and  duty,  and 
"  agreeing  to  disagree,"  when  this  involves  a  truce  with 
error :  but  by  a  candid  and  affectionate  discussion  of 
the  points  of  difference  with  our  brethren,  taking  care, 
while  we  argue  with  all  the  force  at  our  command,  to 
divest  ourselves  as  far  as  possible,  in  fact  and  in  appear- 
ance, of  all  party  feeling.  And  thus,  if  we  fail  to  dis- 
lodge the  error  from  the  minds  of  those  who  defend  it, 
we  may  at  least  serve  to  cut  off  recruits  to  it,  from  the 
ranks  of  those  who  have  not  as  yet  committed  them- 
selves. 

There  are  two  extremes  among  religious  controvert- 
ists.  Some,  though  they  reason  with  vigor,  and  ad- 
vance arguments  that,  if  left  to  their  own  force,  would 
tend  to  convince,  exhibit  a  bitter  spirit,  and  assail  with 
harshness  the  feelings  and  the  motives  of  their  oppo- 
nents ;  while  others,  from  an  excessive  fear  of  giving 
offence,  muffle  the  points  of  their  arguments,  and  touch 
the  opposing  sentiments  so  delicately  and  tenderly  as  to 
make,  if  any,  but  a  feeble  impression.  The  true  course 
lies  between  these  two  extremes.  Persons  should  be 
treated  with  courtesy  and  Christian  affection,  feelings 
should  be  respected,  and  motives  not  touched  at  all ; 
while  with  the  error  we  should  grapple  with  all  the 
vigor  of  which  we  are  masters.  This  being  a  foe  to  God 
and  man,  we  should  wage  against  it  a  relentless  war  of 
extermination,  and  assail  it  with  all  the  engines  of  law- 


6  INTRODUCTION. 

ful  combat.  Should  its  native  weakness  be  aided  by  a 
strong  position,  fortified  by  superstition  and  perverted 
natural  feeling,  and  an  attack  in  front,  therefore,  be  not 
the  easiest  way  to  dislodge  it,  we  should  feel  no  hesita- 
tion to  turn  its  position,  if  possible,  and  to  pour  upon  it 
a  destructive  fire  in  the  rear — a  thino-  that  distinguished 
military  men,  with  reason,  so  much  dread. 

In  the  following  pages  I  have  to  deal,  not  with  my 
brethren  who  differ  from  me,  but  with  their  arguments  ; 
and  though  my  onsets,  doubtless,  when  compared  to 
others,  will  be  feeble,  I  shall  give  no  cause  of  offence,  so 
long  as  I  treat  their  arguments  with  fairness  and  justice, 
and  conform  my  course  to  the  principles  of  honorable 
and  lawful  war. 


BAPTISM  IN  ITS  MODE  AM)  SUBJECTS. 


PART  I. 


THE    ACT    OP    BAPTISM. 


Three  definitions  are  given  of  the  act  of  baptism :  1. 
One  party  maintain  that  it  is  the  immersion  of  the  sub- 
ject in  water,  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son, 
and  of  the  Holy  Ghost :  2.  Another,  that  "  it  denotes 
purification  by  water,  whether  the  subject  is  applied  to 
the  element,  or  the  element  to  the  subject "  (Summers, 
p.  13  ;)  that  "  the  mode"  is  either  by  pouring,  by  sprink- 
ling, or  by  immersion,  and  that  the  first  two  are  more 
significant,  and  therefore  preferable,  though  the  last  is 
valid :  and,  3.  A  small  but  increasing  party,  maintain 
that  the  idea  of  immersion  is  not  contained  in  it  at  all, 
and  that  therefore  the  rite  should  never  be  administered 
in  that  way. 

The  first  of  these  positions  the  Baptists  hold,  and  to 
its  support  Part  I.  of  this  argument  is  devoted. 


BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 


CHAPTER  I. 


IMMERSION    ESSENTIAL    TO    BAPTISM. 

Section  I. — The  Meaning  of  the  Word. 

That  immersion  is  essential  to  the  ordinance  is  argued, 
1.  Because  the  Greek  words  used  in  the  New  Testament 
to  designate  it,  mean  immersion.  All  the  standard  lexi- 
cographers agree  in  giving,  as  the  primary  meaning  of 
the  verbs  bapto  and  baptizo,  to  immerse  or  dip,  and  of 
the  nouns  baptisma  and  baptismos,  immersion.  Now, 
upon  the  supposition  that  these  learned  authors  are  cor- 
rect— and  I  know  of  no  one  who  calls  in  question  that 
which  they  unanimously  assert — the  subject  should  no 
longer  admit  of  controversy.  What  though  they  give 
other  so-palled  secondary  meanings,  the  ordinary  signifi- 
cation of  the  words,  as  they  obtained  at  that  time,  must 
have  been  the  sense  in  which  Christ  and  the  sacred 
writers  used  them,  or  else  their  language  was  unintel- 
ligible. And  it  is  a  principle  of  interpretation,  laid 
down  by  the  pedobaptist  Ernesti,  that  "  The  literal 
meaning  is  not  to  be  deserted  without  reason  or  neces- 
sity." 

To  illustrate  my  meaning,  suppose  the  Scriptures  had 
been  written  originally  in  the  English  language,  instead 
of  the  Greek,  and  the  word  dip  had  occurred  in  every 
place  in  which  you  find  baptizo  in  Greek,  and  I  should 


IMMERSION    ESSENTIAL    TO    BAPTISM.  9 

maintain  that  the  ordinance  is  properly  administered  by 
either  pouring,  sprinkling,  or  immersion,  because  the 
word  dip  "  means  any  application  of  water,  having  no 
reference  to  mode  at  all,"  what  would  you  think  of  me  3 
would  you  not  be  strongly  tempted  to  call  in  question 
either  my  intelligence  or  my  honesty  ?  And  yet,  if  your 
impatience  and  disgust  would  permit  you  to  listen  to 
the  arguments  in  support  of  my  assertion,  I  could  pro- 
duce to  you  a  number  of  learned  dictionaries,  which 
agree  in  asserting  that  it  has  as  many  as  half  a  score  of 
"  secondary  significations."  I  could  show  to  you  that 
Johnson,  and  Walker,  and  Webster,  and  others,  give 
among  the  rest,  as  definitions,  to  moisten,  to  wet.  Now 
suppose,  my  dear  pedobaptist  reader,  that  I,  reasoning 
upon  these  grounds,  should  say  :  If  Christ  had  designed 
that  his  followers  should  be  immersed,  (baptized,)  he 
would  have  used  a  word  that  clearly  expressed  that 
mode ;  but  dip,  as  the  dictionaries  all  show,  has  many 
significations,  and  is  in  no  respect  significant  of  mode, 
and  therefore,  when  Christ  commissioned  his  disciples 
to  go  into  all  the  world,  and  preach  the  Gospel  to  every 
creature,  dipping  them,  etc.,  he  meant,  "  Sprinkle  a  little 
water  upon  their  foreheads,  or  apply  the  element  in 
any  way,"  my  dear  pedobaptist  reader,  what  would  you 
say  to  me  ?  Do  tell  me  ! — or  rather  impress  it  upon 
your  own  mind  :  for  mutato  nomine  de  tefabula  narra- 
tur.  Your  answer  to  me,  in  the  supposed  case,  will 
suffice  me  as  an  answer  to  you  in  the  real  case  between 
us ;  since  the  English  dictionaries  give  almost  the  same, 
and  as  many  definitions  to  dip,  that  the  Greek  lexicons 


10  BAPTISM   IN    ITS   MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

give  to  the  verbs  bapto  and  baptizo.  In  English  and  in 
Greek,  the  word  must  have  its  ordinary  signification, 
unless  there  is  something  in  the  connection  that  requires 
otherwise.  Now,  as  the  commission  is  a  plain  statute, 
there  is  nothing  about  it  that  requires  its  words  to  be 
taken  in  any  other  than  their  ordinary  and  literal  sense  ; 
and  the  lexicons  all  assert  that  the  primary  literal  sense 
of  one  of  its  words  (baptizo)  is  to  immerse. 

So  much  for  the  unanimous  testimony  of  the  learned 
authors  of  the  lexicons.  And  certainly  nothing  can 
more  definitely  settle  the  meaning  of  a  Greek  term, 
than  the  unanimous  testimony  of  all  the  Greek  scholars. 
But  Dr.  Summers  appeals  from  the  decisions  of  unin- 
spired scholars  :  "  Let  it  be  remembered  that  we  are  to 
seek  for  the  meaning  of  scriptural  terms  in  the  Scrip- 
tures themselves.  In  this  respect,  as  in  many  otherSj  the 
Bible  is  to  be  its  own  authoritative  interpreter."  p.  95. 
Very  well,  then  :  Let  the  Bible  be  its  own  authoritative 
interpreter,  and  see  if  it  does  not  strongly  corroborate 
the  position  taken  by  the  lexicographers.  Let  us  notice 
the  use  of  the  Greek  words  in  the  original,  and  of  the 
English  words  in  the  pedobaptist  translation  from  it. 

The  Greek  language  is  very  copious,  and  has  a  parti- 
cular word  to  express  every  motion,  application  and  use 
of  water.  For  to  sprinkle,  it  has  ranio  or  rantizo  ;  for 
to  pour,  cheo  or  ekcheo  ;  for  to  ivash  the  hands,  etc., 
nipto  ;  for  to  bathe,  louo  ;  for  to  wash  clothes,  pluno  ; 
for  to  purify,  agnizo  or  kathairo ;  a; id  all  these  words 
are  used  in  the  originals  of  the  Septuagint  and  the  New 
Testament.     The  translators  of  our  present  English  ver- 


IMMERSION    ESSENTIAL    TO    BAPTISM.  11 

sion  were  pedobaptists ;  and  they  use  in  their  transla- 
tions the  word  pour  and  its  derivatives  more  than  150 
times,  the  word  sprinkle  more  than  60  times,  the  word 
dip  and  its  derivatives  more  than  20  times,  the  word 
plunge  once,  and  the  word  purify  a  score  of  times  at 
least.     The  word  baptizo  and  its  derivatives,  when  con- 
nected with  the  ordinance,  they  were  forbidden  by  King 
James  to  translate.     Now  the  point  of  our  present  argu- 
ment is  this :  In  no  case  where  the  original  means  clearly 
pour,  sprinkle  or  purify,  (leaving  out  of  view  the  refer- 
ences to  the  ordinance.)  is  bapto  or  baptizo  used;  and 
in  no  case  where  it  means  to  dip  or  immerse,  is  raino  or 
rantizo,  cheo  or  ekcheo,  agnizo  or  Jcathairo  used.     No 
where   do   our  translators   render   bapto  or   batizo,  by 
sprinkle,  pour  or  purify  ;  and  raino  or  rantizo,  cheo  or 
ekcheo,  agnizo  or  kathairo,  by  dip,  plunge  or  immerse. 
In  the  translation  of  Lev.  iv.,  6,  7,  we  have  the  words 
dip,  sprinkle  and  pour  in  immediate  succession,  in  per- 
fect conformity  with  the  principles  laid  down  above : 
"  And  the  priest  shall  dip  {bapto)  his  finger  in  the  blood, 
and  sprinkle  [raino)  of  the  blood  seven  times  ....  and 
the  priest  shall  pour  {ekcheo)  all  the  blood  at  the  bottom 
of  the  altar."     See  also  iv.,  17,  18,  and  ix.,  9.     If,  then, 
the  words  bapto  and  baptizo  (when  not  used  in  connec- 
tion with  the  ordinance)  in  the  original  Greek  Scrip- 
tures, never  are  used  to  designate  to  pour,  to  sprinkle  or 
to  purifij,  and  the  pedobaptist  translators  never  render 
them  by  these  words ;  but,  when  dipping  is  manifestly 
intended,  and  it  is  expressed  by  one  word,  no  other  than 
bapto  or  baptizo  is  used,  H  is  reasonable  to  infer  that, 


12  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS 

when  the  Bible  uses  them  in  connection  with  the  ordi- 
nance, it  employs  them  in  the  same  sense.  This  argu- 
ment meets  the  demand  of  Dr.  Summers,  and  is  conclu- 
sive against  the  somewhat  irreverent  position,  that  the 
word  baptizo,  as  an  ecclesiastical  word,  has  a  different 
signification  from  baptizo,  as*a  common  Greek  word. 

Dr.  Summers  adopts  the  novel  suggestion  of  President 
Beecher,  that  baptizo,  in  the  New  Testament,  signifies 
neither  to  immerse,  to  sprinkle,  nor  to  pour,  but  to  puri- 
fy ;  and  he  thinks,  consequently,  he  has  the  most  unre- 
stricted warrant  to  baptize  "  either  by  applying  the  ele- 
ment to  the  subject  or  the  subject  to  the  element." 
"The  Jews,"  says  he,  "who  were  contemporary  with 
John  the  Baptist,  attached  the  idea  of  purification  to 
the  word  baptism."  The  only  argument  he  gives  to 
prove  this,  is  the  narrative  in  John  iii. :  " '  After  these 
things  came  Jesus  and  his  disciples  into  the  land  of 
Judea ;  and  there  he  tarried  with  them  and  baptized. 
And  John  also  was  baptizing  in  Enon,  near  to  Salim, 
because  there  was  much  water  there ;  and  they  came 
and  were  baptized.  For  John  was  not  yet  cast  into 
prison.  Then  there  arose  a  question  between  some 
of  John's  disciples  and  the  Jews  about  purifying.  And 
they  came  unto  John,  and  said  unto  him,  Rabbi,  he  that 
was  with  thee  beyond  Jordan,  to  whom  thou  bearest 
witness,  behold  the  same  baptizeth,  and  all  men  come  to 
him.'  This  question  about  purifying,  therefore,  was  a 
question  concerning  the  baptism  administered  by  John 
and  that  administered  by  Jesus.  The  Jews  accord- 
ingly understood  baptism  to  mean  purification."  p.  84. 


IMMERSION    ESSENTIAL   TO    BAPTISM.  13 

This  is  all  the  evidence  given  to  us  to  prove  that  an 
important  word  in  the  New  Testament  has  there  a  mean- 
ing different  from  its  signification  everywhere  else.  And 
upon  this  narrow  basis — this  figment  of  imagination — 
does  his  whole  superstructure  rest.  A  very  few  remarks 
will  show  its  absurdity. 

1.  The  word  translated  purifying  is  not  baptismos, 
but  katharismos ;  and  if  they  are  synonymous  in  the 
New  Testament,  they  are  synonymous  nowhere  else. 

2.  The  sacred  narrative  does  not  say  that  "this  ques- 
tion about  purifying  was  a  question  concerning  the  bap- 
tism of  John  and  that  administered  by  Jesus."  All  that 
is  said  is,  "There  arose  a  question  between  some  of 
John's  disciples  and  the  Jews,  about  purifying,"  (katha- 
rismos,)  not  a  hint  is  given  as  to  any  question  about 
baptism  (baptismos.) 

3.  If  it  be  assumed  that  such  was  the  origin  of  the 
question,  the  most  reasonable  supposition  is,  that  as  the 
Jews  were  accustomed  to  purify  themselves  ceremonially, 
sometimes  by  immersion,  they  thought  that  John,  in 
immersing  others,  had  the  same  object  in  view,  and  was 
therefore  making  innovations  upon  their  customs ;  of 
which  the  disciples  had  attempted  to  disabuse  their 
minds. 

4.  Purification  may  be  the  effect  of  immersion,  but  it 
is  not  immersion  itself. 

5.  The  words  bapto  and  baptizo  have  no  idea  of  water 
contained  in  them.  Like  the  words  dip  and  immerse,  in 
English,  they  are  connected  not  only  with  water,  but 
with  any  thing  else  that  can  be  penetrated.     Dr.  S.  him- 


14  BAPTISM   IN    IT3    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

self,  p.  223,  gives  examples  where  it  is  used  in  connec- 
tion with  breast  milk  and  wine.  Classic  and  other 
Greek  authors  furnish  innumerable  instances  where  the 
words  are  used  in  connection  with  honey,  wax,  oint- 
ment, the  human  body,  a  dish,  fire,  brine,  gall,  oil,  vine- 
gar, soup,  moist  earth,  broth,  fat,  filth,  etc.  The  ordi- 
nance of  baptism  has  water  connected  with  it ;  but  the 
word  baptlzo  has  necessarily  no  connection  with  water. 

6.  The  ordinance  of  baptism  implies,  in  part,  purifica- 
tion, but  the  words  bapto  and  baptizo  contain  no  such 
idea  in  them  ;  since,  like  dip  and  immerse,  they  may  be 
connected  with  words  which  imply  defilement.  Job.  ix., 
30,  31  :  "  If  I  wash  myself  with  snow  water,  and  make 
my  hands  neves  so  clean,  (apolcatharomai  chersi  Jcatha- 
rais,)  yet  shalt  thou  plunge  me  in  the  ditch  "  (en  rwpo 
me  ebapsas) — literally,  plunge  or  dip  me  in  filth.  Here 
Jcathairo,  from  which  katharismos  is  derived,  is  used  in 
opposition  to  bapto,  from  which  baptismos  is  derived  ; 
and  the  latter  used  in  a  phrase  which  is  designed  to  ex- 
press not  purification,  but  defilement! 

Having  disposed  of  this  fanciful  interpretation  which 
no  scholar  of  reputation  has  endorsed,  let  us  return  to 
the  point  whence  we  were  for  a  moment  diverted. 

The  common,  primary  signification  of  the  words  used 
to  designate  the  ordinance,  is  all  that  we  need  to  estab- 
lish our  definition  of  the  act  of  baptism.  On  the  testi- 
mony of  all  Greek  scholars,  and  from  the  usage  of  the 
inspired  language  of  the  original  Scriptures,  we  have 
found  this  to  be  immerse.  Even  Dr.  Summers  seems  to 
grant  this.     "  Who  ever  denied  that  the  word  bapto, 


IMMERSION    ESSENTIAL   TO    BAPTISM.  15 

from  which  baptizo  is  derived,  sometimes  means  to  im- 
merse ?  Indeed,  who  ever  denied  that  the  derivative, 
baptizo,  is  sometimes  used  in  the  same  sense  ?"  p.  93. 
"  Suppose  the  word  bapto  originally  meant  dip,  how 
easily  would  it  take  the  meaning,"  &c.  p.  97.  "The 
derivative,  baptizo,  may  have  primarily  meant  to  dip? 
p.  98.  It  is  proved  by  the  testimony  of  all  scholars, 
whether  disinterested  or  otherwise,  that  their  primary, 
usual,  and  common  signification  is  immersion  ;  and  here 
we  might  rest  the  argument  from  philology.     But, 

3.  We  take  a  higher  position  still,  and  maintain  that 
baptizo,  baptisma,  and  baptismos,  the  only  words  used  to 
designate  the  ordinance,  mean  immersion  and  nothing 
else.  They  have  no  secondary  meaning.  If  this  can  be 
proved,  surely  it  ought  to  settle  the  controversy.  Do  you 
say  that  this  is  merely  my  assertion  ;  and  are  you  pro- 
ceeding to  offset  it  by  the  assertions  of  others,  who  have 
the  reputation  of  being  profound  Greek  scholars  ?  I  ask 
you  not  to  receive  my  opinion,  but  to  weigh  my  proof. 
If  I  am  not  very  much  mistaken,  I  can  prove  it,  and 
that,  too,  without  an  array,  to  the  mere  English  scholar, 
of  crabbed  and  outlandish  Greek  sentences.  Nay,  to 
satisfy  my  reader  of  the  truth  of  my  assertion,  I  do  not 
require  that  he  shall  be  properly  an  English  scholar  ; 
all  I  demand  is,  that  he  should  possess  common  sense, 
and  be  able  to  see  the  force  of  a  simple  argument,  when- 
presented  in  plain  English.  As  I  write  chiefly  for  the 
unlearned,  I  shall  take  care  to  give  my  readers  confi- 
dence, by  so  arguing  as  not  only  to  subject  myself  to 
exposure  from  scholars,  but  to  place  it  in  the  power  of 


16  BAPTISM   IN   ITS   MODB  AND   SUBJECTS. 

any  man  of  common  sense  to  refute  me,  if  not  put  me 
to  confusion,  if  I  have  ignorantly  and  recklessly  asserted 
that  which  is  without  foundation. 

JBapto,  I  grant,  has  two  significations — to  dip  or  im- 
merse,  and  to  dye.  This  word,  however,  is  never  used  to 
designate  the  ordinance,  and  may  therefore  be  dismissed 
from  this  inquiry.  Writers  show  inadvertancy  or  un- 
fairness, when  they  attempt  to  show  the  act  of  baptism 
from  the  meaning  of  this  word. 

Baptizo,  a  derivative  from  bapto,  means  to  dip  or  im- 
merse ;  and  baptisma  and  baptismos  mean  immersion. 
These  three  words  are  the  only  ones  used  to  designate 
the  ordinance,  and  we  have  said  they  express  the  act  of 
immersion,  and  nothing  else.  Do  you  ask  how  we  prove 
this  ?  I  answer,  in  the  only  way  in  which  such  a  propo- 
sition can  be  proved.  We  have  collated  all  the  passages 
in  which  the  words  have  as  yet  been  found,  in  classic 
Greek  literature,  up  to  the  time  of  Christ,  in  the  Septua- 
gint  version  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  in  the  Greek  of 
the  New,  and  in  the  works  of  Josephus,  who  lived  imme- 
diately after  the  time  of  Christ,  and  have  found  that,  in 
every  case,  this  is  their  proper  and  only  meaning.  Did 
the  limits  of  my  work  permit,  and  were  I  writing  chiefly 
for  the  learned,  I  could  give  here  innumerable  examples, 
already  collated  to  my  hand,  embracing  all  the  instances 
that  have  yet  been  brought  to  light,  all  of  which,  with 
united  voice,  bear  the  same  testimony. 

Do  you  say  that  this  is,  after  all,  basing  the  proof  upon 
my  assertion,  and  do  you  inquire  how  it  is  that  I  lay 
myself  open  to  exposure,  as  I  promised  ?     I  answer,  In 


IMMERSION    ESSENTIAL    TO    BAPTISM.  IV 

this  way :  I  have  said  that  no  passage  in  any  Greek 
writings,  up  to,  and  immediately  after  the  time  of  Christ, 
can  be  found  containing  these  words,  where  they  must 
be  translated  by  any  other  English  word  than  dip  or 
immerse.  I  make  this  assertion  in  the  face  of  the  many 
scholars  in  your  ranks,  who  are  interested  to  expose  me, 
if  they  can.  Now,  if  you,  or  any  one  else,  can  cite  such 
a  passage,  then  my  assertion  is  disproved,  and  I  shall  be 
driven  from  this  advanced  position.  Cite  to  us  a  pas- 
sage, where  the  words  or  either  of  them,  must  necessarily 
and  naturally  mean  something  else,  and  we  will  admit 
it,  and  fall  back  from  this  position  to  that  found  in  the 
primary  meaning.  The  argument  from  the  primary 
meaning  amounts  to  a  demonstration ;  this,  if  true, 
amounts  to  an  utter  annihilation  of  the  opposing  senti- 
ment. 

We  have,  for  a  long  time,  been  advertising  for  pas- 
sages that  would  show  more  than  one  meaning  to  these 
words  ;  but  none  have,  as  yet,  been  produced — nor  can 
they  be.  True,  our  brethren  have  expended  much  zeal, 
and  no  little  learning,  in  responding  to  us ;  but  all  the 
examples  they  cite  are  turned  against  them,  as  I  shall 
show  you  can  be  done  with  those  that  have  recently 
been  brought  forth  and  paraded  in  pedobaptist  books. 
If,  then,  we  go  over  the  whole  range  of  Greek  literature, 
up  to  the  time  of  Christ,  assisted,  too,  by  all  the  learning 
and  self-interest  of  the  pedobaptist  world,  and  do  not 
find  a  passage  in  which  the  words  must  mean  any  thing 
else  than  immersion,  then  it  follows  conclusively,  that 
they  mean  immerston  and  nothing  else.     Finally,  it  fol- 


18  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS 

lows  that  the  act  of  baptism  is  immersion,  and  nothing 
else. 

Section  II. —  Objections  to  the  Definition  of  the  Word 
answered. 

I  have  said  that  our  brethren  have  responded  to  our 
oall  for  evidence  that  these  words  have  more  than  one 
meaning,  and  have  cited  from  the  Scriptures,  from  classic 
Greek,  and  from  Josephus,  examples  which,  they  argue, 
disprove  our  assertion.  Nor  have  they  contented  them- 
selves with  this — though  this,  if  successful,  would  suffice 
to  drive  us  from  our  advanced  position.  Either  from 
some  misgivings  as  to  the  pertinency  of  their  citations, 
or  because  of  their  conviction  that  our  assertion,  if  sus- 
tained, is  by  itself  decisive  of  the  contest,  they  array 
against  us,  besides,  authority,  argument  and  ridicule. 
Now,  this  last  we  have  not  the  slightest  objection  to,  and 
we  shall  never  complain  of  any  one  for  using  it  against 
us.  If  a  position  be  in  fact  ridiculous,  it  is  perfectly 
legitimate  to  make  it  appear  so  ;  if  it  be  not  ridiculous, 
the  effort  to  make  it  appear  so  will  recoil  upon  the  one 
who  attempts  it.  Would  Gibraltar  frown  less  sternly, 
because  a  simpleton  attempted  from  below  to  laugh  it 
into  a  surrender  ?  And  which  would  appear  more  ridic- 
ulous, the  garrison  or  the  assailant?  We  can  enjoy 
your  ridicule  as  well  as  you,  and  laugh  at  it  all  the  more 
heartily,  because  your  wit,  which  you  vainly  attempt  to 
throw  up  at  us,  ascends  only  high  enough  to  fall  down 
ludicrously  upon  your  own  head.  "  Attic  salt "  is  calcu- 
lated to  produce  a  very  keen  smart  when  it  can  be 


IMMERSION    ESSENTIAL    TO    BAPTISM.  19 

brought  into  contact  with  an  exposed  and  sensitive  part ; 
but  how  do  you  suppose,  is  it  natural  for  the  assailed  to 
be  affected,  when,  in  perfect  security,  he  observes  that  all 
the  materials  with  which  your  guns  are  charged  are 
shattered  into  fragments  against  his  impregnable  wall, 
and  fall  in  the  minutest  saline  particles  into  your  own 
eyes  ?  Ridicule,  when  directed  against  persons,  is  always 
out  of  order ;  but  it  is  ever  legitimate  when  applied  to 
arguments.  If  the  argument  be  ridiculous,  it  is  lawful 
to  make  it  appear  so  ;  if  it  be  not  so,  the  attempt  to 
make  it  appear  so  will  injure  not  it,  but  the  assailant. 
Far  be  it  from  us,  therefore,  to  complain  that  you  ridi- 
cule us. 

But  we  demand,  from  our  brethren,  something  more 
than  this.  Let  their  arguments  be  ever  so  plausible,  and 
their  ridicule  ever  so  keen,  and  their  authorities  ever  so 
weighty,  nothing  but  the  Greek  examples  can  refute  us  ; 
and  one  such,  if  it  testifies  against  us,  can  drive  us  from 
our  position.  To  the  production  of  one  such  example, 
then,  we  sternly  hold  those  who  oppose  us.  But  it  is 
said,  by  way  of  objection, 

1 .  "  Do  not  words  frequently  undergo  changes  in  sig- 
nification ? — there  is  the  word  let,  for  instance,  that  for- 
merly signified  to  hinder,  now  meaning  the  very  oppo- 
site; and  prevent,  formerly. meaning  to  anticipate,  and  a 
multitude  of  others,  to  the  same  effect.  May  not  bap- 
tizo,  then,  have  undergone  like  changes?"  I  answer, 
there  is  nothing  more  common  than  for  words  to  depart 
very  far  from  their  primary  meanings  ;  but  that  they  do 
so  derart  is  ascertained  not  by  assumption,  but  by  notic- 


20  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

ing  their  applications,  in  the  various  connections  in 
which  they  are  found.  Now,  our  assertion  is,  that  these 
three  Greek  words  have  not  departed  from  their  original 
signification  : — that  they  meant  at  the  time  of  Christ, 
and  ever  had  meant  immersion,  and  nothing  else.  This 
assertion  is  based,  as  we  have  said,  upon  a  careful  colla- 
tion of  all  the  passages  containing  them.  Now,  if  there 
is  one  passage  teaching  anything  else,  bring  it  forward, 
and  we  yield  the  point.     But  you  cannot  do  it. 

Objection  2.  "  But  is  it  not  ridiculous  that  the  Bap- 
tists, an  ignorant  sect,  should  speak  with  so  much  confi- 
dence with  regard  to  the  meaning  of  Greek  words,  when 
they  are  opposed  by  the  vast  majority  of  the  Christian 
world,  containing  such  a  preponderance  of  learning  ?" 
Softly,  my  dear  sir.  I  confess  there  is  something  ridic- 
ulous about  it.  It  is  ludicrous,  that  this  despised  sect, 
that  have  no  learning  to  boast  of,  should  keep  at  bay,  or 
rather  discomfit,  the  whole  pedobaptist  world,  because, 
though  they  have  Greek  at  their  fingers'  end,  they  can- 
not cite  one  passage  that  disproves  their  ignorant  as- 
sertion ! 

Objection  3.  "  But  how  can  you  have  the  face  to  as- 
sert that  these  words  have  but  one  meaning,  when  all, 
or  nearly  all,  the  lexicons  are  against  you  ?  The  posi- 
tion you  take  was  assumed  first  by  Dr.  Carson,  who 
acknowledges,  'I  have  all  the  lexicographers  and  com- 
mentators against  me  in  this  opinion.'  Is  not  this  prima 
facie  evidence  on  such  a  question  as  this,  that  he  and 
you  are  wrong  in  your  opinion,  and  fatuous  in  trying  to 
maintain  it?"  Summers,  p.  223.     Dr.  S.  is  a  dicjkmary 


IMMERSION    ESSENTIAL    TO    BAPTISM.  21 

man  himself,  and  by  the  use  of  the  word  "  fatuous  "  he 
seems  determined  that  his  readers  shall  be  also. 

Doubtless,  many  of  your  unlearned  brethren,  (if  you 
have  any  such  among  you,)  when  they  heard  a  Baptist 
minister,  in  whom  they  had  confidence,  assert,  for  the 
first  time,  that  these  words  mean  immersion  and  nothing 
else,  were  filled  with  concern,  until  they  had  an  oppor- 
tunity to  apply  to  some  teacher,  or  to  a  recent  graduate 
of  the  same  persuasion  with  themselves  ;  and  when  their 
oracle  showed  them  that  the  lexicons  in  his  possession 
give  many  significations,  they  concluded  that  surely 
they  must  have  misunderstood  the  speaker.  When, 
however,  on  a  similar  occasion,  in  a  similar  address,  he 
repeated  the  assertion,  they  looked  upon  him  with 
astonishment,  uncertain  whether  the  remark  proceeded 
from  ignorance  or  dishonesty,  or  whether  it  was  the 
effect  of  both. 

Now,  this  objection  from  the  lexicons  is  one  of  the 
easiest  things  in  the  world  to  obviate.  The  fact  is,  the 
lexicons  are  all  on  our  side;  though  it  may  plausibly 
appear  that,  in  this  question  as  to  the  number  of  mean- 
ings pertaining  to  these  words,  they  are  against  us. 
The  first  that  they  give  is  the  true  and  only  signification, 
and  the  others  are  mere  commentaries  upon  the  word,  in 
certain  passages  in  which  it  is  found. 

But  first,  in  regard  to  Dr.  Carson's  admission.  One 
would  suppose,  in  reading  Dr.  Summers,  that  Dr.  Car- 
son grants  that  the  lexicons  and  he  are  at  issue,  in 
regard  to  the  meaning  of  the  word,  when  the  fact  is 
just  the  other  way.     Dr.  Miller,  of  Princeton,  set  the 


22  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

example  in  garbling  Dr.  C,  and  it  would  seem,  from  Dr. 
SumtOers's  close  imitation  of  him,  either  that  he  had  seen 
Dr.  Carson's  language  nowhere  else  than  in  Dr.  Miller's 
book,  or  that  he  had  been  trained  in  the  same  school 
of  candor  with  the  Princeton  Doctor.  Dr.  Carson's 
language  is  as  follows  :  "  My  position  is,  that  it  (baptizo) 
always  signifies  to  dip — never  expressing  any  thing  but 
mode.  Now,  as  I  have  all  the  lexicographers  and  com- 
mentators against  me  in  this  opinion,  it  will  be  necessary 
to  say  a  word  or  two  with  respect  to  the  authority  of 
lexicons."  p.  55.  "  It  is  in  giving  secondary  meanings,. 
in  which  the  lines  are  not  so  easily  discovered,  that  the 
vision  of  the  lexicographer  is  to  be  suspected."  "  I  ad- 
mit that  the  meaning  which  they  take  out  of  the  word 
is  always  implied  in  the  passage  where  the  word  occurs. 
But  I  deny  that  this  meaning  is  expressed  by  the  word. 
It  is  always  made  out  by  implication,  or  in  some  other 
way."  p.  56.  "  What  an  insurmountable  task  it  would 
be  to  master  a  language,  if,  in  reality,  words  had  as  many 
different  meanings  as  lexicons  represent  them  !  Park- 
hurst  gives  six  meanings  to  baptizo.  I  undertake  to 
prove  that  it  has  but  one  ;  yet  he  and  I  do  not  differ 
about  the  primary  meaning  of  this  word.  He  assigns 
to  it  figurative  meanings.  I  maintain  that  in  figures 
there  is  no  different  meaning  of  the  word.  It  is  only  a 
figurative  application.  The  meaning  of  the  word  is 
always  the  same.  Nor  does  any  one  need  to  have  a 
figurative  application  explained  iu  any  other  way  than 
by  giving  the  proper  meaning  of  the  word.  When 
this  is  known,  it  must  be  a  bad  figure  that  does  not 


IMMERSION    ESSENTIAL    TO    BAPTISM.  23 

contain  its  own  lip-lit.  It  is  useless  to  load  lexicons 
with  figurative  applications,  except  as  a  concordance." 
p.  57. 

I  have  said  that  the  lexicons  and  we  agree — that  the 
first  definition  which  they  give  is  the  true  and  only  sig- 
nification, and  that  the  others  are  mere  commentaries  on 
the  passages  in  which  the  word  is  found ;  or,  as  Dr. 
Carson  expresses  it,  that  the  definitions  which  they  give 
of  the  word  is  more  properly  the  meaning  which  is  im- 
plied in  the  passages  in  which  the  word  is  found.  How 
do  I  prove  this  ?  I  will  illustrate  it  by  the  English  lexi- 
cons, in  the  definitions  which  they  give  of  the  word  dip. 
Does  dip  have  a  definite  signification?  Suppose  we 
should  say,  Our  position  is  that  dip  always  signifies  to 
immerse,  never  expressing  anything  but  mode.  Upon 
your  principles,  would  we  not  have  all  the  English  lexi- 
cographers against  us  ?  Let  us,  as  a  specimen,  call  Dr. 
Samuel  Johnson  to  the  stand,  and  see  what  he  testifies. 
He  gives  you  his  definitions,  and  the  passages  upon 
which  he  founds  them.     Hear  him  : 

DIP,  v.  a.,  1.  To  immerse. 

2.  To  moisten,  to  wet. 

"And  though  not  mortal,  yet  a  cold  shuddering  dew 
Dips  me  all  o'er,  as  when  the  wrath  of  Jove 
Speaks  thunder." — Milton's  Comics. 

What  a  pity  it  is  that  Dr.  Johnson  did  not  live  in  our 
day,  so  as  to  have  the  benefit  of  the  criticisms  of  Dr. 
Summers  and  others  like  him  !  He  would,  in  that  case, 
have  drawn  from  this  passage  the  additional  significa- 


24  BAPTISM    Dff    ITS    MODE    AND    8UBJECTS. 

tions,  to  sprinkle,  to  distill,  to  come  down  upon.  In  his 
criticism  on  a  like  passage  in  the  Septuagint,  (Dau.  iv., 
33,)  Dr.  S.  says:  ''Any  child  can  tell  whether  Xebu- 
chadnezzar  was  plunged  into  the  dew  or  sprinkled  with 
it.  Xo  matter  how  copious  it  was,  he  was  neither 
plunged  nor  immersed  in  it.  The  Greek  translators 
knew  better  than  that.  They  knew  that  the  copious 
moisture  came  down  upon  the  person  of  the  unhappy 
monarch  :  yet  they  employ  the  word  ebaphe  to  express 
this  action."  p.  93.  We  commend  this  criticism  to  the 
favorable  notice  of  the  Doctor's  editors  hereafter.  How 
great  a  relief  it  would  be,  if  we  could  drive  dip  not  only 
out  of  the  Greek,  but  out  of  the  English  also.  But  to 
return  to  Dr.  Johnson's  definitions  : 

3   To  be  engaged  in  any  affair  I 

"  TVTien  men  are  once  dipt they  go  on  until 

they  are  stilled."     (L'Estrange.) 

Poor  dip,  I  am  afraid  you  are  in  a  fair  way  of  being 
stifled  yourself. 

4.  To  engage  as  a  pledge  :  generally  used  for  the  first 
mortgage  ! 

"  Be  careful  still  of  the  main  chance,  my  son. 
Put  out  the  principal  in  trusty  hands, 
Live  on  the  use,  and  never  dip  thy  lands." — Dri/den. 

DTP,  v.  n.,  1.   To  sink. 

2.  To  enter,  to  pierce. 

"The  vulture  dipping  into  Promstheus'  side." — OrenvilU. 

3.   To  enter  slightly  into  any  thing. 


IMMERSION    ESSENTIAL    TO    BAPTISM.  25 

u  When  I  think  all  the  repetitions  are  struck  out  in  a 
copy,  I  sometimes  find  more  by  dipping  in  the  first 
volume." — Pope. 

4.  To  take  that  which  comes  first,  to  choose  by 
chance. 

"With  what  ill  thoughts  of  Jove  art  thou  possessed? 
Wouldst  thou  prefer  him  to  some  man  ?     Suppose 
I  dipped  amongst  the  worst,  and  Staius  choose." — Dryden. 

Where  have  we  got  to  ?  Dip  signifies  to  engage  as  a 
pledge,  to  take  that  which  comes  first !  Disguised  with 
such  a  dress  as  this,  and  wandering  so  far  from  home, 
its  most  intimate  friends  would  not  recognize  it — nay,  it 
would  not  know  itself.  There  is  a  story  told  to  this 
effect :  A  simple-hearted  countryman,  driving  to  town  a 
yoke  of  oxen  in  a  cart,  and  falling  asleep,  his  team  wan- 
dered away  from  the  high  road,  into  a  region  unknown 
to  him.  While  he  was  profoundly  slumbering,  a  wag 
unhitches  his  oxen  and  leads  them  out  of  sight.  Poor 
Giles,  awaking  from  sleep,  in  the  first  moments  of  bewil- 
derment, is  in  doubt  about  his  personal  identity,  and 
thus  soliloquizes  :  "  If  this  is  Giles  Jones,  I  have  lost  a 
yoke  of  steers  ;  if  it  is  not,  I  have  found  a  cart."  In  like 
manner,  if  dip  could  soliloquize,  it  might  say  :  M  If  this 
is  dip,  I  have  lost  my  position  in  the  language  :  if  it  is 
not,  I  have  found  a  great  many  other  positions."  Dip 
means  to  take  that  which  comes  first !  Then  if  Christ 
had  given  his  commission  in  English,  and  it  had  read, 
•'  Preach  the  Gospel  to  every  creature,  dipping  them," 


26  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

etc.,  he  may  have  meant,  take  them  by  chance,  as  you 
fall  in  with  them ! 

There  is  one  other  example  from  Pope,  which  seems 
to  have  escaped  Dr.  Johnson,  which  we  commend  to  the 
notice  of  the  editors  of  another  edition  of  his  dictionary. 
If  they  would  call  to  their  aid  the  critical  acumen  of  Dr. 
Summers,  they  could,  doubtless,  add,  as  other  definitions 
of  the  word,  to  paint,  to  dye,  to  color. 

"Loose  to  the  winds  their  airy  garments  flew, 
Thin  glittering  textures  of  the  filmy  dew, 
Dipped  in  the  richest  tinctures  of  the  skies, 
Where  light  disports  in  ever  mingling  dyes." — Rape  of  the  Lock. 

That  is,  "painted  with,  or  dyed  in,  the  richest  tinctures  of 
the  skies.  The  same  havoc  the  English  dictionaries 
make  with  the  word  immerse. 

Now,  my  dear  reader,  Dr.  Johnson  does  not  mean  to 
say  that  dip  has,  properly,  any  other  signification  than 
to  immerse  ;  nor  do  the  lexicographers  of  the  Greek  lan- 
guage mean  to  say  that  baptizo  has  any  other  significa- 
tion than  to  immerse.  All  the  significations  which  thev 
give,  after  No.  1,  are  mere  commentaries  on  the  word,  in 
the  passages  in  which  it  has  a  figurative  application. 
But  if  they  do  mean  to  assert  that  it  has  the  half  dozen 
or  more  independent  significations  which  they  append 
to  it,  we  would  deny  the  conclusion,  and  demand  the 
proof.  They  did  not  make  the  significations,  but  drew 
them  from  the  various  applications  of  the  word  in  the 
passages  in  which  it  is  found.  As  we  have  shown  above, 
the  lexicographers  are  not  against  us  ;  but  if  they  were, 


IMMERSION    ESSENTIAL    TO    BAPTISM.  27 

we  would  join  issue  with  them,  and  defy  them  to  pro- 
duce a  single  example  in  which  the  word  has  a  different 
meaning  from  to  dip,  to  immerse.  They  could  not  do  it ; 
nor  can  you.  We  would  not  yield  to  the  authority  of 
the  lexicons,  if  they  were  against  us.  Nothing  but  the 
passage  containing  the  word,  where  it  must  mean  some- 
thing else,  can  refute  us.  Now,  if  there  is  such  a  pas- 
sage, you  and  the  lexicons  together  can  produce  it. 
We  hold  you  to  this.  But  the  passage  cannot  be  found. 
Objection  4.  "  Well,  we  are  able  to,  and  will  produce 
a  number  of  examples  to  disprove  your  assertion.  We 
can  furnish  such  from  the  Greek  of  the  Scriptures,  from 
classic  Greek,  and  from  the  works  of  Josephus."  Now, 
then,  you  are  coming  to  the  point.  Dr.  Summers  is  one 
of  your  latest  writers  who  has  published  a  book ;  and,  I 
suppose,  your  citations  are  the  same  as  his,  since  his  (as 
far  as  he  goes)  are  the  same  as  those  of  his  predecessors. 

Examples  from  the  Greek  of  the  Scriptures. 

1st.  The  case  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  Dan.  iv.,  33.  "  And 
his  body  was  wet  (bapto)  with  the  dew  of  heaven."  To 
this  I  answer,  (1.)  The  word  here  is  not  baptizo  but 
bapto.  This  latter,  we  have  said,  has  two  meanings  :  to 
dip  or  immerse,  and  to  dye  ;  but  it  is  never  used  in  con- 
nection with  the  ordinance,  and  proves  nothing  for  you, 
therefore,  in  this  controversy ;  but  (2,)  even  this  should 
not  have  been  translated  by  the  word  wet,  but  by  the 
word  dip.  "  His  body  was  dipped  in  the  dews  of 
heaven."     It   is  a  figurative   application   of  the   word 


28  BAPTISM    IN    IT8    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

bapto ;  and   is  strictly  a  parallel  case  to  the  example 
from  Milton : 

"And  though  not  mortal,  yet  a  cold  shuddering  dew 
Dips  me  all  o'er." 

How  do  you  suppose,  reader,  Dr.  Summers  gets  over 
this  striking  coincidence  ?  Why,  by  saying,  "  Not  being 
mortal,  however,  we  cannot  reason  from  this  case  to 
Nebuchadnezzar !"  The  difficulty,  however,  does  not 
consist  in  the  object  dipped,  but  in  the  substance  into 
which  it  is  dipped.  And  in  each  case,  that  is  not  some- 
thing supernatural — as  nectar  or  ambrosia,  for  instance 
— but  the  dew  of  nature.  The  translators  have  lost  the 
beauty  and  force  of  the  original,  and  have  given  us  the 
effect  of  the  act  implied  in  the  word,  rather  than  the  act 
itself.  How  tame  would  be  the  passage  from  Milton,  if 
amended  according  to  the  literal  principles  of  our  critics 
— "  Cold  shuddering  dew  wets  me  all  o'er."  Nor  can 
Dr.  Summers  urge  against  us  the  authority  of  the  trans- 
lators, for  he  himself  appeals  from  it :  "  Any  child  can 
tell  whether  Nebuchadnezzar  was  plunged  into  the  dews 
or  sprinkled  with  it."  In  his  hands  Milton  would  read, 
"  A  cold  shuddering  dew  sprinkles  me  all  o'er." 

2d.  "In  Heb.  ix.,  10,  the  translators,"  it  is  said,  "ren- 
der the  word  baptis?nos  correctly,  washing :  '  Which 
stood  only  in  meats  and  drinks,  and  divers  washings' 
(diaphorois  baptismois")  On  this,  Dr.  S.  appealing  in  fact, 
though  not  ostensibly,  from  the  rendering  of  the  transla- 
tors, cites,  as  illustrative  of  the  meaning  that  the  Apos- 
tle attaches  to  the  word  baptismois.  Heb.,  ix.,  13  :  "If 


IMMERSION    ESSENTIAL    TO    BAPTISM.  29 

the  blood  of  bulls  and  of  goats,  and  the  ashes  of  an  heifer, 
sprinkling  the  unclean,"  etc.,  and  adds,  "  every  attentive 
reader  of  the  Pentateuch  knows  that  the  purifications 
here  alluded  to  were  effected  by  aspersion  or  affusion,  as 
the  Apostle  affirms,  and  these  sprinklings  he  calls  bap- 
tism." "  He  alludes  to  the  purification  of  unclean  per- 
sons by  water,  into  which  had  been  cast  the  ashes  of  a 
burnt  heifer.  This  water  of  separation  was  to  be 
sprinkled  upon  a  man  that  had  touched  a  corpse,  to 
effect  his  purification,  Numb.  xix. ;  and  this  sprinkling 
St.  Paul  expressly  styles  baptism."  p.  80.  It  would 
seem  that  the  Avord  baptismois,  here,  does  not  mean 
"  washings,"  then,  but  "  sprinklings."  As  to  the  asser- 
tion that  the  Apostle  expressly  styles  sprinkling  baptism, 
I  answer,  that  he  expressly  styles  it  not  baptism,  but 
rantism  ;  since  the  word  used"  is  not  baptizousa,  but 
rantizousa. 

I  have  read  the  nineteenth  chapter  of  Numbers,  to 
Avhich  Dr.  S.  refers  us,  and  I  do  indeed  find,  as  he  says, 
purification  by  sprinkling  there.  In  v.  4,  I  read,  "  And 
Eleazer  the  priest  shall  take  of  her  blood  Avith  his  finger, 
and  sprinkle  (ranei)  of  her  blood  directly  before  the 
tabernacle  of  the.conorrepfation  se\ren  times."     But,  con- 

•  ©         ©  / 

tinuing  down,  I  read  in  v.  7,  "  Then  the  priest  shall  Avash 
his  clothes,  and  he  shall  bathe  his  flesh  in  water,  (lousetai 
to  soma  autou  udati,)  and  afterwards  he  shall  come  into 
the  camp."  "  And  for  an  unclean  person,  they  shall  take 
of  the  ashes  of  the  burnt  heifer  of  purification  for  sin, 
and  running  Avater  shall  be  put  thereto  in  a  vessel :  And 
a  clean  person  shall  take  hyssop,  and  dip  (bapsei)  it  in 


30  BAPTISM    IN    IT8    MODB    AND    SUBJECTS. 

the  water,  and  sprinkle  it  (perirranei)  upon  the  tent, 
and  upon  all  the  vessels,  and  upon  the  persons  that  were 
there,  and  upon  him  that  touched  a  corpse,  or  one  slain, 
or  one  dead,  or  a  grave  :  And  the  clean  person  shall 
sprinkle  (perirranei)  upon  the  unclean  on  the  third 
day,  and  on  the  seventh  day  :  And  on  the  seventh  day 
he  shall  purify  himself  (aphagnisthesetai)  and  wash  his 
clothes,  and  bathe  himself  in  water"     v.  17—19. 

If  you  grant  that  Dr.  Summers  is  an  "  attentive  reader 
of  the  Pentateuch,"  where  is  his  candor  ?  and  if  you 
allow  his  candor,  what  evidence  is  there  that  he  is  an 
"  attentive  reader  of  the  Pentateuch  ?" 

The  diaphorois  baptismois,  divers  baptisms,  in  the 
10th  verse,  should  be  translated  divers  immersions,  as 
the  rantizousa  in  the  13th  verse  should  be  translated, 
as  it  is,  sprinkling.  The  ceremony  to  which  the  Apos- 
tle referred,  as  recorded  in  Numb,  xix.,  required  both 
sprinkling  and  immersion,  and  therefore  he  speaks  of  both 
sprinkling  and  immersion — and  of  the  latter  divers,  viz  : 
of  the  clothes,  of  the  body,  and  of  divers  utensils.  So 
you  see,  this  example,  instead  of  militating  against  our 
assertion,  strongly  corroborates  it. 

3d.  Another  example,  cited  to  prove  the  pedobaptist 
view,  is  Mark  vii.,  4.  Our  translators,  they  say,  render 
baptizo  correctly,  ivash.  "  For  the  Pharisees,  and  all 
the  Jews,  except  they  wash  their  hands  oft,  (pugme 
nipsontai  tas  cheiras,)  eat  not,  holding  the  traditions  of 
the  elders.  And  when  they  come  from  the  market,  ex- 
cept they  wash,  (baptisontai,)  they  eat  not.  And  many 
other  things  there  be,  which  they  have  received  to  hold, 


IMMERSION     ESSENTIAL    TO    BAPTISM.  31 

as  the  washing  (bajytismoits)  of  cups,  and.  pots,  and 
brazen  vessels,  and  tables."'  Now,  there  ought  to  be  no 
difficulty  about  this  passage.  The  original  is  perfectly 
plain,  and  is  illustrated  by  the  customs  of  the  Jews,  both 
as  those  customs  were  of  divine  appointment,  as  pre- 
sented to  them  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  as  they  were 
superstitious,  and  handed  down  to  us  by  their  own 
Rabbies,  and  by  other  authentic  writers  on  their  anti- 
quities. Mark  states  to  us  two  customs,  ordinary  and 
extraordinary.  They  never  eat  without  (pugme  nipson- 
tai  tas  cheiras)  washing  their  hands  oft,. or  up  to  the 
elbow,  or  with  .the  fist,  or  as  far  as  the  fist  extended, 
according  as  pugme  may  be  rendered  ;  and  when  they 
come  from  the  market,  where  they  may  possibly  have 
contracted  pollution  by  contact  with  the  common  peo- 
ple, or  with  a  Gentile,  unless  they  immerse  themselves, 
[baptisontai,)  they  eat  not.  And  many  other  things 
there  be,  which  they  have  received  to  hold,  as  the  im- 
mersion (baptismous)  of  cups,  and  pots,  and  brazen  ves- 
sels, and  tables. 

The  Scriptural  institution,  which  they  had  corrupted 
by  the  superstition  contained  in  the  tradition  of  the 
elders,  is  found,  as  it  related  to  their  persons,  in  Numb, 
xix.,  19  :  "And  on  the  seventh  day,  he  (the  unclean 
person)  shall  purify  himself,  and  tvash  his  clothes,  and 
bathe  himself  in  water;"  and  in  Lev.  xv.,  11,  "And 
whosoever  he  toucheth  that  hath  the  issue,  and  hath 
not  rinsed  his  hands  in  water,  he  shall  wash  his  clothes 
and  bathe  himself  in  ivaterP 

Maimonides,  one  of  the  most  elaborate  of  Jewish 


32  BAPTISM.  IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

Rabbies — as  quoted  by  Lightfoot  and  others — says: 
"  Wherever,  in  the  law,  washing  of  the  flesh  or  of  the 
clothes  is  mentioned,  it  means  nothing  else  than  the  dip- 
ping of  the  whole  body  in  a  laver:  for  if  any  man  dips 
himself  all  over,  except  the  top  of  his  little  finger,  he  is 
still  in  his  uncleanness."  Again  :  "  If  the  Pharisees 
touched  but  the  garments  of  the  common  people,  they 
were  defiled,  all  one  as  if  they  had  touched  a  profiuvious 
person,  and  needed  immersion,  and  were  obliged  to  it : 
hence,  when  they  walked  the  streets,  they  walked  on  the 
side  of  the  way,  that  they  might  not  be  defiled  by  touch- 
ing the  common  people."  "  In  a  laver  (they  say)  which 
holds  forty  seahs  of  water,  every  man  dips  himself." 

Again,  the  Scriptural  institution  which  they  had  cor- 
rupted, as  it  related  not  only  to  themselves,  but  also  to 
their  furniture,  utensils,  etc.,  is  found  in  Lev.  xi.,  32,  and 
c.  15  :  "  And  upon  whatsoever  any  of  them,  when  they 
are  dead,  doth  fall,  it  shall  be  unclean,  whether  it  be  any 
vessel  of  wood,  or  raiment,  or  skin,  or  sack,  whatsoever 
vessel  it  be,  wherein  any  work  is  done,  it  must  be  pu* 
into  water?  Lev.  xv.,  4,  etc.  "  Every  bed  wherein  he 
lieth  that  hath  the  issue,  is  unclean ;  and  every  thing 
whereon  he  sitteth  shall  be  unclean.  And  whosoever 
toucheth  his  bed  shall  wash  his  clothes  and  bathe  him- 
self in  water,  etc.  And  he  that  sitteth  on  any  thing 
whereon  he  sat  that  hath  the  issue,  shall  wash  his  clothes 
and  bathe  himself  in  water"  v.  19,  etc.  "And  if  a 
woman  have  an  issue,  and  her  issue  in  her  flesh  be 
blood,  etc.,  every  thing  that  she  lieth  upon  in  her  sepa- 
ration, shall  be  unclean  ;   every  thing,  also,  that  she 


IMMERSION"   ESSENTIAL    TO   BAPTISM.  33 

sitteth  upon  shall  be  unclean.  And  whosoever  toucheth 
her  bed,  shall  wash  his  clothes,  and  bathe  himself  in 
water.  And  whosoever  toucheth  any  thing  that  she 
sat  upon,  shall  wash  his  clothes,  and  bathe  himself." 
The  reader  is  requested  to  lay  this  book  aside  until  he 
has  read  the  15th  chapter  of  Leviticus.  From  its  peru- 
sal, he  will  very  easily  divine  how  natural  it  was  for  the 
superstitious  and  punctilious  pharisee  to  fall  into  the 
habit  of  bathing  or  immersing  himself  in  water,  every 
time  he  ran  the  risk  of  contact  with  pollution  ;  and  of 
subjecting  his  couches  to  the  same  method  of  purifica- 
tion, whenever  he  had  reason  to  fear  they  had  suffered 
defilement. 

Is  it  objected  that  Leviticus  says  nothing  about  im- 
mersing in  water  utensils,  tables,  &c.  ?  I  answer,  these 
observances  are  pronounced,  by  the  evangelist,  to  be  tra- 
ditions of  the  elders  ;  but  these  traditions  were  suggested 
naturally,  to  a  superstitious  mind,  by  the  requirements 
of  the  law,  and  were  additions  made  to  it.  Besides,  Lev. 
15,  does  give  directions  for  the  purifications  of  some 
utensils,  v.  12.  "  And  the  vessel  of  earth  that  he  touch- 
eth which  hath  the  issue,  shall  be  broken ;  and  every 
vessel  of  wood  shall  be  rinsed  {nipto)  in  water."  Is  it 
said  that  these  were  not  required  to  be  immersed  (bap- 
tizo)  by  the  law,  but  to  be  washed  (?iipto)  or  rinsed?  I 
grant  it ;  but  Mark  says  their  custom  is  a  departure  from 
the  requirement  of  the  law ;  and  this  in  two  respects — 
(1)  in  assuming  that  they  may  have  been  unclean,  when 
none  of  those  things  had  happened  to  them  that  were 
specified  in  the  law  ;  and  (2)  in  baptizing  or  immersing, 
3 


34  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MCDE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

rather  than  breaking  or  rinsing  (nipto)  them  in  water. 
Besides,  in  Lev.  xi.  32,  they  had  been  instructed : 
"  And  upon  whatsoever  any  of  them,  when  they  are  dead, 
doth  fall,  it  shall  be  unclean  ;  whether  it  be  any  vessel 
of  wood,  or  raiment,  or  skin,  or  sack,  whatsoever  vessel  it 
be  wherein  any  work  is  done,  it  muni,  be  put  into  ivater." 
But  it  is  said  again,  that  the  tables  (klinon)  were 
couches  on  which  they  reclined  at  table,  and  were, 
therefore,  too  large  to  be  immersed  often.  To  this,  I 
answer,  (1)  the  account  does  not  state  that  they  were 
immersed  often — it  only  states  the  custom  received  from 
tradition,  without  giving  any  hint  as  to  the  frequency 
of  its  observance  ;  and  (2)  as  to  the  size  ;  we  know  that 
one  kind  of  bed  was  not  so  large  but  that  the  man  healed 
by  Christ  was  able  to  take  it  up  and  walk  with  it.  Is 
it  said,  again,  that  such  immersion  of  beds  or  couches — 
be  they  large  or  small — would  have  been  inconvenient 
and  absurd  ?  I  grant  it ;  the  evangelist  says  it  was  a 
tradition,  and  therefore  superstitious.  You  cannot  main- 
tain that  it  is  impossible,  on  account  of  its  size,  to  im- 
merse that  which  is  not  too  large  for  an  invalid  to  take 
up  and  carry.  And  as  to  inconvenience,  there  is  nothing 
too  inconvenient  for  superstition  to  submit  to.  Do  you, 
disputing  the  ground,  inch  by  inch,  insist  that  immer- 
sion in  water  is  impossible,  since  its  impregnation  with 
water  would  render  the  couch  unfit  for  use  ?  I  answer, 
we  are  not  told  that  the  bed  or  couch  was  used  before 
it  was  dry ;  and  besides,  "  the  Mine  is,  properly  speak- 
ing, only  the  bedstead,  and  seems  to  have  consisted  only 
of  posts,  fitted  into  one  another,  and  resting  upon  four 


IMMERSION    ESSENTIAL    TO    BAPTISM.  35 

feet."  (Smith's  Diet,  of  Greek  and  Rorn.  Ant.)  A  com- 
mon lounge  with  which  your  bedroom  is  provided,  and 
which  your  wife  can  easily  take  up,  is  as  l*rge  as  the 
Grecian  Mine.  Do  you  still  insist  upon  it,  that  the  pri- 
vate houses  of  pharisees  could  not  have  been  provided 
with  water  sufficient  to  cover  a  bed  or  couch  even  of 
that  size  ?  Without  stopping,  at  present,  to  measure 
for  you  the  depth  and  size  of  the  pots  and  other  recep- 
tacles for  water,  with  which  they  were  provided,  (though, 
when  I  come  to  speak  of  the  supply  of  water  in  Jerusa- 
lem, I  will  give  you  water  to  your  heart's  content,)  by 
the  help  of  Rabbi  Maimonides,  I  will  remove  this  diffi- 
culty if  you  desire  it.  "  A  bed  that  is  wholly  defiled,  if 
he  dips  it  part  by  part,  it  is  pure."  "Taken  to  pieces 
for  the  purpose,  says  a  determined  plunger  !"  No,  Dr. 
Summers — not  says  a  determined  plunger — but  says 
Rabbi  Maimonides. 

"  But  a  man  must  be  insane,  or  at  least  blinded  by 
prejudice,  who  can  suppose  that  these  couches  or  beds — 
each  of  which  was  large  enough  for  the  accommodation 
of  several  persons — were  immersed  before  every  meal." 
Summers,  p.  85.  Suppose  we  grant  that  the  Mine  here 
was  not  like  that  which  the  invalid  took  up  and  carried, 
but  like  that  upon  which  persons  reclined  at  table ;  who 
maintains  that  they  were  immersed  before  every  meal  ? 
The  inspired  text  does  not  inform  us  that  they  were 
immersed  as  often  even  as  once  a  year.  And  "  a  man 
must  be  insane,  or  at  least  blinded  by  prejudice,"  or 
worse,  who  can  refuse  to  believe  that  these  couches  (or 
beds)  were  immersed,  when  he  has  the  authority  of  the 


86  BAPTISM    tK    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

Holy  Spirit,  and  the  testimony  of  all  the  writers  on 
Jewish  antiquities,  eve  i  those  who  are  not  concerned 
with  this  baptismal  controversy. 

"  The  more  superstitious  of  the  Jews,  every  day  before 
they  sat  down  to  meat,  dipped  the  whole  body.  Hence 
the  pharisees'  admiration  of  Christ-"  Luke  xi.  38. 
( Sealiger.) 

"  We  leave  it  to  any  unprejudiced  person  of  common 
sense — to  any  child  who  can  read  the  record — to  de- 
cide n  whether  this  example  militates  against  the  position 
that  baptize  means  immerson  and  nothing  else. 

3.  The  case  of  Judith  in  the  Apocrypha  (Judith,  xii. 
7,  8.)  "  Then  Holofernes  commanded  his  guard  that 
they  should  not  stay  her ;  thus  she  abode  in  the  camp 
three  davs,  and  went  out  in  the  night  into  the  vallev  of 
Bethulia,  and  washed  herself  in  a  fountain  of  water  by 
the  camp  {ebaptizeto  en  te  paremhole  epi  tes  peges  tou 
zidatos.)  And  when  she  came  out,  she  besought  the 
Lord,"  (fcc.  Dr.  Summers  translates  it,  B  she  baptized 
herself  in  the  camp  at  a  spring  of  water."  "  If  she 
plunged  herself  at  all,  she  plunged  herself  into  the 
spring,  and  not  at  it  :  but  the  text  says,  she  washed  her- 
self at  the  spring,  not  in  it."  p.  95.  Very  well  ;  we 
shall  have  use  for  this  criticism  hereafter ;  and  we  beg 
the  reader  to  note  it  well.  Whatever,  then,  may  be  the 
signification  of  baptizo,  en  means  in  and  epi  means  at. 
After  a  while  we  shall  find  our  author  insisting  that  en 
means  at  or  with,  and  not  in.  Let  the  reader  stick  a 
pin  here.  According,  then,  to  his  rendering  of  the  pre- 
positions, "  she  immersed  herself  at  a  spring  of  water  in 


IMMERSION    ESSENTIAL    TO    BAPTISM.  3*7 

the  camp?1  u  Immersed  at  the  spring  !  How  was  that 
possible  ?"  During  the  month  of  August  last,  I  im- 
mersed fifty  persons  at  a  spring  near  Antioch  meeting- 
house, Oglethorpe  Co.,  Geo.  "  At  a  spring !"  Yes. 
"  How  r  We  diverted  the  water  that  flowed  from  the 
spring  into  a  pool  of  suitable  dimensions,  which  it  filled. 
And  what  more  likely  than  that  in  a  camp  of  long 
standing,  the  waters  of  the  spring  or  fountain  were  col- 
lected in  a  number  of  reservoirs,  for  the  use  of  the  sol- 
diers and  their  animals  ]  "  But,"  says  Dr.  S.,  "is  it  likely 
that  she  was  so  immodest  as  to  plunge  into  a  reservoir 
in  the  soldiers  camp  V  But,  my  dear  sir,  it  was  in  the 
night,  and  Holofernes  had  given  special  instructions, 
that  she  should  not  be  interrupted  in  the  observance  of 
her  religious  rite.  And  besides,  in  what  respect  would 
it  have  been  more  modest  to  have  exposed  herself,  while 
"  she  applied  the  water  of  the  fountain  to  her  person  in 
the  usual  mode  of  performing  ablution  ?"  And  why 
would  it  not  have  been  more  modest  to  have  "  applied 
water  to  her  person  "  in  a  tent,  from  a  vase  or  a  basin, 
if  "  the  usual  mode  of  performing  ablution  "  was  that 
which  she  employed?  The  immersion  took  place  at  a 
fountain  at  night,  because  at  a  fountain  she  foimd  water 
enough  to  immerse  herself  in.  The  record  not  only  in- 
forms us  that  she  baptized  or  immersed  herself,  but  that 
she  came  out. 

We  leave  it  again  to  any  person  of  common  sense — 
to  any  child  that  can  read  the  record — to  decide  whether 
this  example  militates  against  the  position  that  baptizo 
means  to  immerse  and  nothing  else. 


38  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

4th.  Ecclesiasticus,  xxxiv.,  25,  "  He  that  washeth  {bap- 
tizomenos)  himself  after  the  touching  of  a  dead  body, 
if  he  touch  it  again,  what  availeth  his  washing  (loutro.) 
He  that  immerscth  himself  after  the  touching  of  a  dead 
body,  if  he  touch  it  again,  what  availeth  his  bathing. 
The  only  argument  necessary  here  is  a  mere  reference 
to  Num.  xix.,  17-19. 

Examples  from  Classic  Greek. 

5th.  "  Aristotle  speaks  of  uninhabited  lands  which  at 
low  water  are  not  baptized,  that  is,  not  overflowed." 
Summers,  p.  223.  The  statement  of  Aristotle  is  to  the 
following  effect :  "  The  Phenicians  who  inhabit  Cadiz 
relate,  that,  sailing  beyond  Hercules'  Pillars,  in  four  days, 
with  the  wind  at  east,  they  came  to  a  land  uninhabited, 
whose  coast  was  full  of  sea-weeds,  and  is  not  laid  under 
water  {baptized)  at  ebb ;  but  when  the  tide  comes  in,  it 
is  wholly  covered  and  overwhelmed."  Does  not  this 
very  passage,  though  cited  against  us,  prove  the  truth 
of  our  assertion  ?  But,  it  is  asked,  can  the  flood  tide  be 
said  to  take  up  the  land  and  immerse  it  in  the  sea  ? 
Not  at  all ;  for  an  object  to  be  immersed,  it  is  not  neces- 
sary for  it  to  be  taken  up  first.  "  The  peculiar  beauty 
of  the  expression  consists  in  figuring  the  object,  which 
is  successively  bare  and  buried  under  water,  as  being 
dipped  when  it  is  covered,  and  as  emerging  when  it  is 
bare.  In  the  same  style,  we  might  say  that  at  the  flood, 
God  immersed  the  mountains  in  the  waters,  though  the 
waters  came  over  them." 


IMMERSION    ESSENTIAL    TO    BAPTISM.  89 

6th.  "  Plutarch  speaks  of  Otho's  being  baptized  with 
debts,  that  is,  overwhelmed  with  them.  So  •'Plato : 
'  they  do  not  baptize  the  common  people  with  taxes.' " 
Sum.,  p.  223.  "Well,  Dr.  Summers,  what  do  Plutarch 
and  Plato  mean  ?  They  do  not  pour  the  common  peo- 
ple with  taxes,  or  sprinkle  with  taxes,  or  "purify  by 
water  "  with  taxes !  "  That  is,"  says  Dr.  S.,  abandoning 
what  the  word  "  properly  denotes,"  "  they  do  not  lay 
heavy  taxes  upon  them."  Ah  !  Suppose  they  had,  what 
would  have  been  the  effect  ?  They  would  have  sunk 
under  them.  And  then  we  should  have  had  an  immer- 
sion. The  proper  translation  is,  they  do  not  immerse 
the  common  people  with  taxes.  That  is,  if  heavy  taxes, 
as  a  burden,  had  been  placed  upon  them,  they  would 
have  sunk  under  or  been  immersed  by  them  :  and  Otho 
was  sunk  or  immersed  or  pressed  down  by  the  weight 
of  debts  heaped  upon  him. 

7.  "  Josephus  speaks  of  the  city  being  baptized  by' 
the  robbers."  (lb.)  Does  he  mean  that  the  city  was 
poured  or  sprinkled  or  purified  by  luater  by  the  robbers  ? 
or  does  he  mean  that  it  was  immersed,  i.  e.,  ruined,  or 
sunk  by  the  robbers  ?  "  The  reference  is  to  a  ship  sink- 
ing from  being  over-burdened  and  ill-managed  in  the 
storm  from  the  dissensions  of  the  crew.  In  this  view, 
the  figure  is  striking  and  beautiful." 

8th.  "  Hippocrates  speaks  of  baptizing  a  blister  plaster 
with  breast  milk  ;  of  course,  by  pouring  it  on  or  moist- 
eniug  it  thereby."  (lb.)  Pouring  wThat  on  ? '  What 
does  it  refer  to — the  plaster?  It  was  the  blister  plaster 
that  was  to  be  baptized.     Pouring  the  plaster  on  the 


40  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

milk  ?  If  it  refers  to  breast  milk,  then  the  milk  was 
baptized  by  " pouring  it  on"  the  plaster  !  The  transla- 
tion is,  "  Dip  it  again  in  breast  milk  and  Egyptian  oint- 
ment." He  is  speaking  of  a  blister,  which  was  first  to 
be  dipped  in  the  oil  of  roses,  and  if,  when  thus  applied, 
it  should  be  too  painful,  it  was  to  be  dipped  again  in 
the  manner  above  stited. 

9th.  "  Greek  writers  also  frequently  speak  of  being 
baptized  with  wine,  which  implies  the  application  of  the 
element  to  the  subject  and  not  of  the  subject  to  the  ele- 
ment." (lb.)  Greek  writers  frequently  speak  of  being 
immersed  in  wine,  just  as  English  writers  frequently 
speak  of  being  steeped  or  soaked  in  wine,  when  "  no 
child  who  can  read  the  record"  would  suppose  that  they 
meant  to  indicate  how  the  wine  and  the  toper  came 
together — whether  the  wine  was  applied  to  the  drinker 
or  the  drinker  to  the  wine.  The  figure  evidently  is, 
that  the  person  is  as  much  imbued  with  the  wine  as  if 
he  had  been  immersed  in  it. 

10th.  Another  example  has  been  cited  from  Josephus, 
by  the  highly  esteemed  gentleman,  whose  remarks  at 
"  Centre"  were  the  occasion  of  the  present  publication — 
where  Josephus  states  that  the  sons  of  Herod  were  over- 
whelmed by  a  storm.  Mr.  Parks  seemed  to  understand 
that  the  young  men  were  exposed  to  a  storm  of  rain,  on 
land,  and,  therefore,  he  considered  it  a  case  of  pouring 
rather  than  of  immersion.  The  original  is,  touto  osper 
teleutaia  thuella  cheimazomenous  tous  neanisJcous  epc- 
baptisen.  "Whisten,  who  was  not  a  Baptist,  translates  it 
thus :  "  And  this  it  was  that  came  as  the  last  storm,  and 


IMMERSION    ESSENTIAL    TO    BAPTISM.  41 

entirely  sunk  the  young  men  when  they  were  in  great 
danger  before."  The  case  of  Homer's  Battle  of  the 
Frogs,  also  cited  by  him,  was  not  pertinent ;  since  bapto, 
and  not  baptizo,  is  used.  The  translation  then  may  be, 
"  the  lake  was  tinged  with  blood."  Thus  we  have  ex- 
amined all  the  passages  cited  by  Dr.  Summers,  and 
shown  that  they  do  not  militate  against  our  position. 
The  same  can  be  shown  to  be  true  of  the  whole  list  froir 
which  he  selected  these. 

If  we  could  succeed  in  showing  that  baptize  is  never 
used  by  any  writer,  sacred  or  profane,  to  express  to  pour 
or  to  sprinkle,  though  it  had  ten  thousand  other  signifi- 
cations, Ave  should  convict  our  brethren  of  corrupting 
Christ's  ordinance — nay,  rather,  of  abolishing  it  alto- 
gether, and  of  adopting  another  of  their  own.  How 
much  more,  then,  when  we  prove  that  it  has  but  one 
signification,  and  that  one,  to  immerse  !  And  let  it  not 
be  said  that  those  denominations  that  consider  immersion 
valid  baptism,  and  that  practice  it  when  their  members 
desire  it,  still  maintain  the  ordinance ;  for,  if  their  argu- 
ments have  any  force,  the  condition  upon  which  they 
base  their  practice,  is  not  the  authority  of  God's  word, 
but  the  whims  of  the  "  weak  consciences"  and  "  unstable 
souls"  in  their  communion. 

The  Baptists,  in  contending  for  the  literal  interpreta- 
tion of  the  Scriptures,  according  to  the  laws  of  language, 
and  the  common  meaning  of  its  words,  are  not  only  pre- 
serving, in  its  purity  and  in  its  pristine  form,  the  ordi- 
nance of  Christ,  but  they  are  maintaining  a  principle, 
which  makes  them  the  champions  of  God's  word  against 


42  BAPTISM   IN    ITS   MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

infidels  and  errorists  of  every  kind.  I  know  of  nothing 
that,  to  me,  is  more  dishonoring  to  the  Scriptures — nay, 
that  tends  more  utterly  to  annul  them — than  the  doc- 
trine that  lies  at  the  foundation  of  our  brethren's  prac- 
tice in  regard  to  this  ordinance,  viz. :  that  the  words  of 
the  Holy  Sj)irit  are  not  to  be  taken  in  the  sense  in  which 
they  obtained  in  secular  writings,  and  in  the  use  of 
common  intercourse  ;  but  in  a  mystical  or  ecclesiastical 
sense.  It  is  upon  a  principle  like  this,  that  the  neologists 
of  Germany  essay  to  prove  from  the  Scriptures  that 
Christ  and  his  apostles  performed  no  miracles ;  and, 
upon  this  principle,  we  can  make  them  teach  any  thing 
or  nothing,  according  as  we  may  be  influenced  by  j)re- 
judice  or  interest.  If  the  words  of  Scripture  have  eccle- 
siastical significations,  from  whence  can  we  obtain  with 
certainty  those  significations  ?  Did  Christ  furnish  his 
disciples  with  a  dictionary  containing  those  words  ?  Nay, 
why  did  he  use  a  human  language  at  all  ?  Why  run 
the  risk  of  misleading,  by  the  use  of  terms  in  an  arbi- 
trary sense  which  already  had  a  definite  meanirg  ?  Why 
not  invent  words,  as  our  pedobaptist  translators  did, 
when  they  transferred  into  English  the  Greek  word  bap- 
tize ?  or  why  not  have  given  his  revelation  in  the  dialect 
of  heaven,  and  thus  have  it  all  in  an  ecclesiastical  sense  ? 
"  We  are  not  so  much  concerned  to  know  in  what  sense 
Homer  or  Aristophanes,  Josephus  or  Philo,  employed  a 
term  which  the  Holy  Ghost  has  seen  fit  to  incorporate 
into  the  vocabulary  of  Christianity — the  question  is,  how 
did  the  Holy  Ghost  employ  it  ?  Summers,  p.  95.  Yes, 
that  is  the  question  ;  and  how  is  it  to  be  decided  ?  How 


IMMERSION  , ESSENTIAL    TO    BAPTISM.  43 

did  the  Holy  Ghost  employ  any  terms?  Evidently  in 
the  sense  in  which  those  terms  obtained  in  common  use. 
Nor  are  the  words  pneuma,  spirit,  and  aggelos,  angel, 
cited  by  Dr.  S.  exceptions.  Pneuma  was  used,  before 
the  time  of  Christ,  to  signify  spirit. — See  ^Esch.  Pers. 
507,  Eur.  Hec.  571,  Or.  277,  Tro.  780,  Time.  ii.  49. 
And  aggelos  was  sometimes  used  by  the  classic  writers 
as  in  the  New  Testament. — See  Plato  iv.  de  Leg.  p.  DC. 
1.  ed.  Lamasrian.  and  Aristid.  The  context,  in  every 
case  in  which  it  is  used,  decides  the  meaning  to  be 
attached  to  it. 

The  argument  of  the  Baptists  is  based  upon  the  com- 
mon, primary,  usual,  and — as  we  have  proved — the  only 
signification  of  baptizo :  the  argument  of  our  opponents 
upon  an  arbitral'}-,  and,  as  they  call  it  "  sacred"  significa- 
tion, which  the  word  never  held  either  in  the  use  of 
common  intercourse,  nor  in  Greek  writings  in  all  time. 
Which  is  right,  therefore,  judge  ye. 

If  the  above  positions  be  sustained,  is  any  thing  more 
necessary  to  prove  immersion  essential  to  the  ordinance  ? 
Nothing  more  is  necessary,  but  yet  we  have  more  to 
offer.  If  bapto  or  baptizo  does  not  mean  to  immerse, 
then  there  is  no  word  in  the  Greek  language  that  can  ex- 
press that  act.  If  there  is,  what  is  it  ?  Buthizo  ?  But 
that  means  to  descend  into  the  abyss,  or  to  drown,  from 
buthos,  an  abyss.  1  Tim.  vi.  9,  "  But  they  that  would 
be  rich  fall  into  temptation,  and  a  snare,  and  into  many 
foolish  and  hurtful  lusts,  which  drown  (buthizousi)  men 
in  destruction  and  perdition."  Luke  v.  7,  "And  they 
came  ami  filled  both   the  ships,  so  that  they  began  to 


44  BAPTISM   IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

sink"  {buthizesthai,)  i.  e.,  into  the  abyss.  2  Maccabees, 
xii.  4.  "  But  when  they  were  gone  forth  into  the  deep, 
they  drowned  {ebuthisan)  no  less  than  two  hundred  of 
them."  If  bapto  or  baptizo  does  not  mean  to  immerse, 
what  does  ?  Kataduo  ?  Some  of  our  opponents  profess 
to  believe  that  this  is  a  more  specific  term  to  denote  dip 
than  baptizo.  So  far  from  their  assertion  being  true,  I 
maintain  that  it  has  not  the  meaning  of  to  dip  at  all. 
The  Sybilline  verse  which  Plutarch  quotes,  in  his  Life 
of  Theseus,  not  only  proves  my  assertion,  but  shows  the 
difference  between  the  signification  of  baptizo  and  duo 
or  duno  or  dumi. 

Askos  baptize,  dunai  de  toi  outhemis  esti. 

"  Thou  mayest  be  immersed,  O  bladder,  but,  it  is  not  thy 
fate  to  sink  ;"  i.  e.,  a  bladder  distended  with  air  can  be 
immersed  into  water,  but  it  cannot  sink — as  soon  as  the 
force  is  removed,  it  will  rise  a^ain  to  the  surface.  To  the 
same  effect  is  the  testimony  of  quotations  from  the  Scrip- 
tures. Ex.  xv.  10,  "Thou  didst  blow  with  thy  wind,  the 
sea  covered  them  ;  they  sa?ik  (edusan)  as  lead  in  the 
mighty  waters."  Ex.  xv.  5,  "  The  depths  have  covered 
them  ;  they  sank  into  the  bottom  (katedusan  eis  buthori) 
as  a  stone."  Amos,  ix.  3,  "And  though  they  be  hid 
{kataduo)  from  my  sight  in  the  depths  of  the  sea." 
Micah,  vii.  19,  "And  thou  wilt  cast  {kataduo)  all  their 
sins  into  the  depths  of  the  sea." 


BAPTISM   IS    IMMERSION.  45 


CHAPTER  II. 

BAPTISM  IS  IMMERSION,  PROVED  FROM  EXAMPLES  OP  ITS 
ADMINISTRATION  IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT,  WHERE  DE- 
TAILS ARE  GIVEN. 

Section  1. — The  Baptism  of  the  Saviour. 

Did  we  have  nothing  but  the  meaning  of  the  word 
which  expresses  the  act  of  baptism,  we  would  be  left  in 
no  doubt  as  to  how  this  ordinance  is  to  be  administered. 
This  we  have  proved  beyond  the  power  of  refutation  to 
mean  not  only  to  immerse,  but  nothing  else.  But  the 
proof  is  cumulative,  and,  from  other  sources,  is,  if  possi- 
ble, as  conclusive.  The  instances  where  the  administra- 
tion of  the  ordinance  is  given  in  the  New  Testament 
with  the  details,  not  only  corroborate  the  testimony  from 
the  meaning  of  the  word,  but  of  themselves  speak  such 
au  unequivocal  language,  that  if  wTe  had  no  other  instruc- 
tion concerning  the  ordinance,  we  could  learn,  without 
a  peradventure,  that  immersion  is  essential  to  it.  Two 
such  examples  are  given,  viz.:  the  baptism  of  our 
Saviour,  and  of  the  Ethiopian  Eunuch.  If  in  these  two 
immersion  was  observed,  and  if  no  hint  is  given  any 
where  else  that  there  are  other  modes  of  baptism,  it 
follows  irrefragably  that  the  immersion  of  the  subject 
into  the  element  is  as  essential  to  the  ordinance  as  the 
use  of  the  element  itself.     And  that  Christ  and  the  Eu- 


46  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

nucli  were  immersed,  he  may  read  that  runs — "  And  it 
came  to  pass,  in  those  days,  that  Jesus  came  from  Naza- 
reth of  Gallilee,  and  was  baptized  of  John  in  Jordan." 
"  And  straightway  coming  up  out  of  the  water,"  etc. 
Mark  i.  9,  10.  Matthew  (chap.  3,)  states  the  same  event. 
V.  6 — "  And  were  baptized  (those  mentioned  above)  of 
him  in  Jordan."  V.  16 — "And  Jesus,  when  he  was 
baptized,  went  up  straightway  out  of  the  water." 

Here  we  have  it  stated : 

1.  That  John  was  baptizing  not  in  a  house,  or  at  a 
spring,  or  by  a  rill,  but  at  the  river  Jordan — why  ?  if  it 
was  not,  for  the  same  reason  that  he  selected  on  another 
occasion,  Enon,  near  to  Salim, "  because  there  was  much 
water  there  V  Do  we  ever  hear  in  these  days  that  our 
brethren  who  oppose  us,  go  to  a  river,  or  to  a  place  where 
there  is  much  water,  in  order  that  they  may  pour  or 
sprinkle  a  little  of  the  element  upon  their  subjects  ?  Do 
Dr.  Summers,  and  others  of  his  brethren,  respond  that 
they  have  done  so  frequently  ?  I  answer,  that  they  re- 
sorted to  such  places  not  to  obtain  facilities  to  sprinkle  or 
to  pour,  but  to  make  a  compromise  with  their  candidates 
who  possessed  "  wTeak  consciences"  or  because  they  were 
seeking  for  a  plea  to  use  against  the  Baptists.  Were 
this  controversy  not  existing,  were  there  no  such  people 
as  the  Baptists,  they  would  never,  with  their  views  of  the 
ordinance,  proceed  to  a  river  or  a  creek  with  their  sub- 
jects, in  order  to  pour  a  half  gill  of  water  upon  their 
heads.  John  had  no  such  turn  to  serve,  and  his  uni- 
formly seeking  places  where  there  was  much  water,  sig- 
nificantly indicates   that   there  was  something  in  his 


BAPTISM    IS    IMMERSION. 


41 


ordinance  that  required  a  depth  of  water  ;  and  what 
more  naturally  than  that  he  might  immerse  his  subjects  ? 
2.  We  are  not  only  told  that  John  was  baptizing  at 
Jordan,  but  that  he  was  baptizing  in  Jordan.  Why  go 
into  the  river,  if  he  wanted  to  sprinkle  or  pour  a  little 
water  upon  the  people  ?  Why  subject  those  "  vast  mul- 
titudes" that  came  to  him  from  Jerusalem  and  Judea, 
and  the  region  round  about  Jordan,  to  the  inconvenience 
and  risk  to  health  of  remaining  in  wet  clothes  all  day, 
far  from  home — both  men  and  women — when  a  little 
water  dipped  up  in  the  palm  of  the  hand  would  have 
sufficed  ?  Was  wading  up  to  the  knees  or  waist  in  water, 
according  to  the  views  of  our  opponents,  a  necessary  part 
of  John's  "  baptism  by  pouring  or  sprinkling  V  And 
if  not  necessary,  do  tell  me,  in  the  name  of  common 
sense,  why  did  he  subject  all  his  subjects  to  the  incon- 
venience, and  the  females  to  the  "  indecency"  of  remain- 
ing a  length  of  time  with  their  clothes  wet  up  to  the 
waist,  "  and  sticking  to  their  persons  '?"  "  For  it  is  alike 
absurd  and  gratuitous  to  affirm  that  they  all  came  pre- 
pared with  baptismal  robes,  and  no  one  can  suppose 
that  they  were  (baptized)  without  change  of  apparel ; 
and  to  (baptize)  promiscuous  multitudes  in  a  state  of 
nudity  is  a  supposition  so  extravagant  as  well  as  inde- 
cent, that  we  cannot  feel  called  upon  to  refute  it."  Sum., 
p.  83.  If  John  was  of  sound  mind,  and  it  was  not 
essential  to  the  validity  of  pouring  and  sprinkling  that 
he  and  his  subjects  should  wade  into  the  river,  no  possi- 
ble reason  can  be  given  why  he  took  his  subjects  into 
the  stream,  but  that  it  was  preparatory  to  their  immersion. 


48  BAPTISM    IN    ITS   MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

• 

3..  We  are  told,  further,  not  only  that  Jesus  was  bap- 
tized in  Jordan,  but  that  he  came  up  straightway  out  of 
the  water.  Our  argument,  then,  amounts  to  a  demon- 
stration, even  though  we  had  not  proved  baptizo  to  mean 
only  to  immerse.  At  Jordan,  and  not  in  a  house,  in  the 
river,  and  not  on  the  bank,  "  coming  up  straightway  out 
of  the  water1'1 — these  are  the  circumstances  which  sustain 
the  primary  meaning  of  the  Greek  verb,  which  expresses 
the  act  to  immerse,  our  opponents  themselves  being 
judges.  The  scene  in  all  its  details  is  witnessed  every 
time  the  ordinance  is  administered  by  a  Baptist  minis- 
ter. No  wonder  that  there  are  such  multitudes  of  "  im- 
mersionists,"  and  that  such  numbers  in  the  ranks  of  anti- 
"  immersionists,"  are  ill  at  ease  on  this  subject.  Not 
many  years  ago,  while  traveling  with  a  brother  in  the 
ministry,  I  fell  in  company  with  an  intelligent  young 
man — a  deaf  mute — who  had  been  educated  at  one  of 
the  Northern  Asylums.  During  the  conversation  which 
my  friend  entered  into  with  him  on  his  slate,  questions  and 
answers  to  the  following  effect  passed  between  them  : — 
"  You  are  a  minister,  I  believe  ?"  "  Yes  ;  1  pass  for 
one."  "  Are  you  a  Baptist  ?"  "  Yes  ;  are  not  you  ?" 
"  No ;  I  am  a  Methodist."  "  Was  Jesus  Christ  a 
Methodist  ?"  "  No  ;  Jesus  Christ  was  a  Baptist."  "  Why 
are  you  not  a  Baptist,  then,  if  Jesus  Christ  was  ?"  "  Be- 
cause my  father  is  a  Methodist."  This  afflicted,  though 
intelligent  young  man,  had  never  heard  of  the  baptismal 
controversy ;  and  his  reading  on  the  subject  being  con- 
fined to  the  New  Testament,  his  conviction  was  that  the 
Saviour  submitted  to  the  ordinance  as  it  is  administered 


BAPTISM    IS    IMMERSION.  •  49 

by  Baptists.  Another  striking  case  in  point : — A  brother 
in  the  ministry,  now  living*  not  more  than  fifty  miles 
from  this  place,  was  administering  the  ordinance,  not 
many  years  ago,  in  one  of  the  upper  counties  in  this 
State.  At  the  water's  side,  he  said  to  the  people  that 
instead  of  making  any  remarks  himself,  he  would  read 
to  them  from  an  old  book,  the  author  of  which  spoke 
more  forcibly  in  behalf  of  Baptist  sentiments  than  he 
could  :  and  then  proceeded  to  read  from  the  New  Testa- 
ment this  and  other  passages.  The  consequence  was, 
that  the  people  denounced  him  for  attempting  to  palm 
off  upon  them  as  authority  the  assertions  of  a  Baptist 
write*  !  In  like  manner,  all  who  read,  with  an  unpre- 
judiced mind,  the  record  of  Christ's  baptism,  as  given 
in  the  English  version  of  the  Scriptures,  must  come  to 
the  conclusion  that  he  was  immersed.  "  But  stop !" 
says  Dr.  Summers  ;  "these  Greek  prepositions  have  not 
been  properly  translated."  Ah,  Dr.  Summers,  you  in 
favor,  too,  of  a  new  translation  of  the  Scriptures  ?  How 
then  should  they  be  translated  ?  "  To  all  this  we  reply, 
that  we  do  not  affect  arguments  based  upon  grammatical 
niceties."  p.  99.  Very  well ;  we  wish  no  "niceties" — 
all  we  desire  is  a  common  sense  interpretation  accord- 
ing to  the  laws  of  language,  and  the  meaning  of  words. 
The  prepositions  used  in  the  account  of  the  Saviour's 
baptism,  are  en,  eis,  and  apo.  He  was  baptized  of  John 
eis  ton  Iordanen  into  Jordan.  And  they  were  baptized 
of  hi  in  ex  to  Iordane,  in  Jordan.  Jesus  came  up  apo 
out  q/*tlie  water.  Dr.  S.  maintains  that  en  means  *with 
when  found  in  connection  with  baptism."  Others  who 
4 


50  Baptism  in  its  mode  and  subjects. 

have  written  on  the  same  side,  and  he  himself  also  in 
another  place,  give  it  the  signification  of  at.  Eis  he 
translates  to  ;  but  nearly  all  his  remarks  on  it  are  con- 
fined to  its  use  in  the  baptism  of  the  Eunuch,  and  our 
formal  reply,  therefore,  to  them  and  to  those  on  ek,  we 
postpone  until  that  case  comes  up  for  discussion.  Apo 
he  translates  from. 

Before  proceeding  to  reply  to  him,  Ave  beg  the  reader 
to  notice  three  things : 

1.  If  we  grant  that  en  means  ctt  or  with,  eis,  to  and 
apo,  from,  he  still  fails  to  explain  why  John  baptized  at 
Jordan  in  the  wilderness,  and  not  in  a  house  in  Jerusa- 
lem, or  in  some  other  populous  place.  A  pail  full  of 
wTater  would  have  sufficed  him  for  his  administration  a 
whole  day :  Why,  then,  did  he  not  cause  the  element 
to  come  to  the  subject,  rather  than  the  subject  to  the 
element  ?  Nothing  but  immersion  will  explain  why 
John  baptized  at  Jordan,  and  at  JEnon,  where  there  was 
"  much  water." 

2.  When  our  author  appeals  from  the  rendering  of 
the  present  English  version,  he  calls  in  question  the 
opinion  not  of  Baptists,  but  of  a  large  body  of  learned 
pedobaptists.  King  James's  translators  were  not  Bap- 
tists. As  members  of  the  "  Church  of  England,"  they 
practiced  pouring  and  sprinkling,  but  as  scholars  and  as 
honest  men,  they  felt  bound  to  give  the  present  render- 
ing, even  though  it  condemned  their  practice. 

3.  Though  it  may  be  granted  that  the  very  many 
meanings  which  our  opponents  ascribe  to  these  words 
really  belong  to  them,  it  is  worthy  of  note  that  King 


BAPTISM    IS    IMMERSION.  51 

James's  translators  give  to  them  their  primary,  usual 
significations  : — en  primarily  and  commonly  means  in  ; 
it  was  as  much  and  as  often  in  in  Greek  as  in  is  in  Eng- 
lish : — eis  primarily  and  usually  means  into  :—ek  pri- 
marily and  usually  means  out  of.  Apo  is  the  only  one 
among  them  all  whose  most  common  signification  is  no! 
given.  Its  ordinary  signification  is  from,  as  our  oppo- 
nents insist ;  but  I  shall  show  that  it  means  also  out  of 
and  that,  too,  in  the  immediate  context.  Is  it  not  a 
significant  fact,  that  all  the  Greek  words  which  belong 
to  this  controversy,  from  baptizo  to  eJc,  in  their  primary 
and  usual  significations,  testify  in  behalf  of  the  Baptists ; 
while  our  opponents  depend,  for  a  precarious  support  to 
their  practice,  upon  a  secondary,  remote  and  uncertain 
signification  ]  All  the  lexicons  give  to  baptizo  the  pri- 
mary signification,  to  immerse,  to  en  that  of  in,  to  eis 
that  of  into,  to  ek  .that  of  out  of — "  But  what  do  they 
say  of  apo  P  We  will  show  you  directly  that  we  may 
grant  that  to  you,  and  yet  use  it  legitimately  against 
you.  Is  it  not  a  remarkable  fact — nay,  unaccountable, 
if  true,  that  our  Saviour  and  the  Holy  Spirit  should  use 
no  word,  in  connection  with  this  ordinance,  in  its  usual 
and  ordinary  sense  ?  That  the  exigencies  of  the  case 
should  drive  our  opponents  to  take  such  a  position,  is  a 
significant  fact  that  will  leave  no  unprejudiced  man  of 
common  sense  at  a  loss  to  decide  which  are  right,  we  or 
they.  It  is  upon  precisely  such  a  principle  as  this  that 
Universalists  defend  their  sentiments.  Were  the  English 
a  dead  language,  containing  the  same  amount  of  works 
extant  as  the  Greek,  and  among  them  this  book  of  Dr. 


52  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

Summers,  any  one  of  common  ingenuity,  having  a  pur- 
pose to  serve  by  using  Dr.  S.'s  principles  of  criticism, 
and  taking  the  same  license  that  he  and  his  coadjutors 
do,  could  prove  to  the  satisfaction  of  those  who  wished 
to  believe  it,  that  Dr.  S.  was  a  "pestilent  anabaptist,"  and 
;j  "  schismatic  immersionist."  But  to  proceed  to  his 
remarks  on  these  Greek  prepositions  : 

"  In  more  than  one  hundred  places  en  is  rendered  at — 
in  one  hundred  and  fifty  others  it  is  rendered  with,  which 
is  its  proper  meaning  when  found  in  connection  with 
baptism,  as  in  every  instance,  except  Mark  i.  9,  it  is  used 
with  a  dative,  which  does  not  express  the  object  of  an 
action,  but  the  instrument  by  which  it  is  effected.  '  I 
indeed  baptize  you  en  iidati,  with  water,  but  he  shall 
baptize  you  en  pneumati  agio,  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and 
with  fire.' "     To  this  I  reply  : 

1st.  The  primary  meaning  of  en  is  in,  and  with,  if  any 
at  all,  is  a  remote  secondary  signification ;  and  there  is 
no  other  preposition  in  the  language  whose  primary  sig- 
nification is  in.  The  preposition  en  occurs  in  the  New 
Testament  two  thousand  seven  hundred  and  twenty 
times.  It  is  translated  at  in  our  common  version  only 
seventy-six  times,  instead  of  more  than  one  hundred,  as 
Dr.  S.  affirms.  In  more  than  forty  of  these  seventy-six 
places  it  occurs  before  the  name  of  a  city,  as  at  Jerusa- 
lem, etc.,  when  it  might  be  properly  translated  in.  In 
about  twenty  more  of  the  seventy-six  places  referred  to, 
it  occurs  in  such  expressions  as  these,  "  at  that  day," 
"  at  that  hour,"  etc. ;  "  so  that  it  may  be  safely  affirmed 
that  not  ten  times  in  nearly  three  thousand,  does  the 


BAPTISM    IS    IMMERSION.  50 

Greek  preposition  en  mean  simply  at  in  our  English 
version."*  If  we  had  time  to  examine  the  "  one  hun- 
dred and  fifty  others  where  it  is  rendered  with"  it  could 
in  like  manner  be  shown  that  the  number  of  places 
where  it  must  necessarily  be  translated  with  is  very 
small.  But  what  is  the  number  one  hundred  and  fifty 
to  three  thousand  ?  As  we  have  said,  en  in  Greek  sig- 
nifies as  commonly  and  as  often  in  as  in  does  in  English. 
And  it  is  axcommon  sense  principle  of  interpretation 
that  a  word  must  have  its  common  usual  signification 
if  it  will  make  sense. 

2d.  Dr.  Summers's  meaning  is  not  very  apparent.  If 
a'itn  after  "Mark  i.  9,"  refers  to  en,  which  the  gram- 
matical structure  of  the  sentence  would  imply,  he  dis- 
plays neither  sense  nor  accuracy.  In  Mark  i.  9,  not  en 
but  eis  is  used ;  and  en,  as  every  school-boy  knows,  is 
never  used  with  any  other  case  than  the  dative,  except- 
ing in  a  very  few  instances  as  a  Doricism  for  eis  with  the 
accusative.  But,  I  suppose  this  cannot  be  what  he  de- 
signs to  say,  as  on  p.  106,  he  quotes  Mark  i.  9,  as  con- 
taining "  eis  with  the  accusative."  "It "  then,  in  the 
passage,  must  stand  for  baptism.  And  his  argument 
then  is  :  "  In  every  case,  except  one,  baptizo  is  used  with 
the  dative  of  the  element ;  the  dative  when  used  with 
the  verb  baptizo  without  a  preposition,  expresses  not  the 
object  of  an  action,  but  the  instrument  by  which  it  is 
effected,  and  is  translated  by  with  ;  therefore,  when  the 
same  words  are  used  with  the  addition  of  en,  the  same 
idea  of  the  instrument  is  implied,  and  the  preposition 

*  "Christian  Repository,"  September,  1S52. 


54  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

accordingly  is  to  be  translated  with.  The  proper  mean- 
ing therefore  of  en  is  with?  This  is  all  I  can  make  out 
of  the  passage  by  way  of  syntax  or  argument ;  and  to  a 
scholar  surely  the  mere  statement  of  it  is  a  sufficient 
refutation.  But  I  have  set  out  with  the  determination 
to  answer  formally  every  thing,  however  ridiculous,  that 
has  the  form  of  argument.     To  this  therefore  I  reply, 

1st.  En  is  used  with  the  dative  of  the  element,  (wa- 
ter, river,  spirit,  e*e.,)  because  it  can  govern  only  the 
dative. 

2d.  This  is  to  make  the  indefinite  limit  and  illustrate 
the  definite — a  principle  which  prevails  in  all  the  criti- 
cisms of  our  opponents.  The  word  baptizo,  they  say,  is 
indefinite  as  to  mode  in  some  Greek  passages,  therefore 
it  is  indefinite  always  when  connected  with  the  ordi- 
nance. When  we  ask  them  if  there  is  any  thing  about 
its  connection  with  the  ordinance,  which  would  make 
its  ordinary  signification  absurd  they  answer,  definitely, 
only  in  regard  to  baptism  in  the  spirit,  and  reply  in 
general  terms,  that  it  sometimes  means  to  toash,  that  it 
may  mean  the  same  when  applied  to  the  ordinance ; 
and  that,  consequently,  being  a  word  of  indefinite  signi- 
fication, any  application  of  water  will  suffice  for  the 
ordinance.  The  plain  English  of  which  is,  that  if  a 
word  can  be  shown  to  have  a  secondary  signification,  it 
has  no  definite  meaning  at  all,  and  can  give  no  definite 
testimony  (should  we  oppose  it)  in  any  passage  in  which 
it  may  be  found.  Now  we  have  shown  that  the  English 
lexicons  give  various  secondary  significations  even  to 
Jie  word  dip.     If  it  be  granted  that  baptizo  does  not 


BAPTISM    IS    IMMERSION.  55 

signify  to  immerse,  in  such  a  Greek  phrase  as  Joannes 
men  ebaptisen  udati,  Acts  i.  5,  the  dative  udati,  if  found 
uniformly  expressed  without  a  preposition,  may  indeed 
be  taken  as  the  instrument,  and  the  phrase  be  translated, 
"  John  indeed  baptized  with  water ;"  but  if  the  phrase 
is  as  commonly  expressed  with  the  preposition  en  before 
the  dative,  and  the  word  baptizo  means,  commonly,  to 
immerse,  it  is  the  more  definite  expression,  and  is  to 
govern  the  indefinite,  rather  than  to  be  governed  by  it. 
Now  our  opponents  all  acknowledge  that  the  primary 
meaning  of  baptizo,  is  to  immerse  ;  and  what  will  my 
reader  think  when  I  inform  him  that  "baptism  is  used 
with  the  dative, ^without  the  preposition  en,  but  twice  in 
the  New  Testament,  and  with  it  at  least  fifteen  times — 
and  in  one  of  those  instances  in  which  it  is  omitted  with 
udati  in  one  clause,  it  is  used  with  pneumati  immediately 
in  the  succeeding  clause :  Acts  i.  5,  John  indeed  bap- 
tized udati  with  water,  but  ye  shall  be  baptized  en  pneu- 
mati, with  the  Holy  Ghost.  If  then  the  usual  and  more* 
definite  expression  is  the  dative  with  the  preposition,  it 
controls  the  rare  and  indefinite  ;  and,  consequently,  in 
the  only  two  exceptions  en  is  to  be  understood.  John 
indeed  immersed  in  water,  but  ye  shall  be  immersed  in 
the  Holy  Ghost. 

3d.  If  a  dative  with  en,  when  connected  with  the  verb 
baptizo,  always  denotes  the  instrument,  why  does  it  not 
denote  the  same  when  connected  with  any  other  verb  i 
To  say  that  you  ground  this  remark  upon  the  fact,  that 
the  verb  has  such  a  meaning  as  always  to  require  this 
construction  of  en,  "  is  a  pitiful  lagging  of  the  question." 


56  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

The  meaning  oibaptizo  is  the  very  thing  that  is  in  dispute 
and  yon  yourself  acknowledge  that  its  primary  significa- 
tion is  to  immerse.  If,  therefore,  the  principle  is  true  with- 
out reference  to  tin  meaning  of  the  verb,  it  will  apply 
as  well  to  all  verbs.  Then  we  are  brought  to  this  con- 
clusion, that,  as  en  is  construed  only  with  the  dative,  it 
never  can  mean  intusposition,  and  consequently  the 
Greek  language  has  no  preposition  the  primary  meaning 
of  which  is  in  : — Nay,  further,  that  en  has  no  meaning 
at  all,  but  is  a  mere  expletive  and  supernumerary  ! 

4th.  But  let  us  apply  this  new  principle  in  syntax  to 
examples  taken  at  random,  and  see  what  will  be  the  in- 
teresting result.  "  The  dative  when  used  with  the  verb 
baptizo  without  a  preposition,  expresses  not  the  object 
of  an  action,  but  the  instrument  by  which  it  is  effected, 
and  is  translated  by  with ;  therefore,  when  the  same 
words  are  used  with  the  addition  of  en,  the  same  idea 
of  the  instrument  is  implied,  and  the  preposition  accord- 
ingly is  to  be  translated  with."  Very  well :  stick  to 
that,  while  Ave  turn  to  your  rendering  of  that  passage 
from  Judith.  The  exigencies  of  your  argument  required 
a  different  principle  of  interpretation  then  :  Ebaptizeto 
en  te  parembole  epi  tes  peges  toil  udatos,,  u  She  baptized 
herself  in  the  camp  at  the  spring  of  water."  Here, 
according  to  your  own  showing,  en  means  in  and  epi 
means  at,  you  forgot  that  pith  is  the  proper  rendering 
of  en,  when  it  is  used  in  connection  with  baptism  and 
the  dative.  Your  translation  of  the  passage  from  Judith 
then  should  have  been,  "  She  baptized  herself  with  the 
camp !"  which,  you  perceive,  would  have  been  a  very 


BAPTISM    IS    IMMERSION.  57 

dry  baptism  ;  almost  as  dry  as  you  say  the  Baptists 
grant  to  the  Israelites  in  the  Red  Sea.  Mark  i.  4,  "  John 
was  baptizing  (baptizon  en  te  eremo)  with  the  wilder- 
ness!" Very  dry  again  ;  and  if  baptizon  means  u  pour- 
ing upon'1''  or  "sprinkling  upon"  your  rule  gives  us  an 
illustration  of  the  Apostle's  "  buried  by  baptism ,"  literal 
enough  and  long  continued  enough  to  meet  the  demands 
of  the  most  carping.  Mark  i.  5 — "  And  they  were  all 
baptized  of  John  (ebaptizonto  en  to  Iordane  potamo)  with 
the  river  Jordan  !*'  And  why  could  he  not  as  easily  have 
baptized  them  with  a  river  as  with  a  wilderness  ]  As  to 
the  "mode,"  Dr.  S.  informs  us:  "The  ceremonial  rite 
which  John  administered,  was  performed  by  pouring  or 
affusion."  p.  81.  If  so,  "I  leave  it  to  any  man  of  com- 
mon sense"  to  decide  how  that  immense  multitude 
looked  while  the  river  was  "coming  down"  upon  them, 
and  after  the  "ceremonial  rite"  was  finished.  It  would 
not  have  been  surprising — provided  they  had  been  ac- 
quainted with  "the  force  of  the  dative" — if  all,  both 
men  and  women,  had  "chosen"  to  go  down  into  the 
river  and  be  immersed,  with  or  without  baptismal 
robes,  if  John  had  been  as  accommodating  as  Dr.  S. 
xays  lie  is,  and  given  the  right  to  them  to  "choose" 
which  "  mode  "  they  would  submit  to.  Dr.  S.  translates 
this  "with  the  water  of  the  river,"  and  adds,  "this  is 
the  force  of  the  dative."  Yes  ;  a  force  great  indeed,  to 
force  water  into  a  passage  that  is  more  destitute  of 
"  water'"  than  the  desert  of  Sahara.  Tie  river  Jordan, 
and  the  water  of  the  river  Jordan,  are  certainly  two 
very  different  phrases. 


58  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

But  Dr.  S.  grants,  without  seeming  to  know  it,  that 
Christ  was  baptized  in  Jordan.  He  says,  p.  106  : — "  In 
only  one  place,  Mark  i.  9,  is  it  said  that  he  (John)  bap- 
tized '  in  Jordan,'  eis  ton  Iordanen,  Jordan  being  put  in 
the  accusative  case."  Without  stopping  to  remark  that 
eis  can  govern  no  other  case  than  the  accusative,  we  re- 
mark, this  "  one  case  "  is  that  which  records  the  baptism 
of  our  Saviour.  Please  to  recollect,  therefore,  that  Dr. 
Summers's  eis  with  the  accusative  has  placed  Christ  in 
the  stream.  We  shall  see  whether  he  can  find  a  prepo- 
sition strong  enough  to  bring  him  upon  dry  land  again.* 

2.  Apo,  our  translators  render  out  of.  "Jesus  went 
up  straightway  out  of  the  water."  Dr.  S.  says  its  pri- 
mary import  is  from.  p.  10.  It  is  worthy  of  special  note 
that  this  is  the  only  one  of  the  three  whose  "  primary 
import"  he  gives.  Their  primary  import  is  against  him, 
and  why  should  he  be  expected  to  put  a  weapon  into 
the  hands  of  his  antagonists.  He  gives  some  examples 
to  prove  his  assertion :  among  the  rest,  " '  who  hath 
warned  you  to  flee  from  the  wrath  to  come  V  '  And 
Jesus  when  he  wTas  baptized  went  up  straightway  from 
the  water.'  There  was  no  more  going  out  of  the  water 
in  this  case,  than  there  was  fleeing  out  of  the  wrath  to 
come  in  the  case  before  mentioned."  p.  101.  Then,  my 
dear  sir,  the  Saviour  never  again  came  upon  dry  land  : 
for  your  eis  with  the  accusative  placed  him  in  the  stream  ! 


*  Dr.  S.  further  on,  seems  to  take  this  admission  back,  and  insists  that  eis 
means  at  as  well  as  in  or  into,  without  attempting,  however,  to  reconcile  the 
inconsistency.  I  make  this  statement  to  do  him  justice  ;  though,  as  a 
scholar,  I  apprehend  justice  is  the  very  thing  he  docs  not  wish. 


BAPTISM*  IS    IMMERSION.  59 

J,  is  astonishing  that  this  inconsistency  escaped  our  au- 
thor, or  that  perceiving  it,  he  failed  to  attempt  its  recon- 
ciliation. "  Thus  self-contradictory  is  error  :  truth  alone 
is  consistent  with  itself."  p.  113.  Let  us  see  if  we  can- 
not assist  him  out  of  his  difficulty,  by  showing  that  apo 
means  out  of  as  well  as  from  ;  and  that  it  is  able  to 
bring  an  object  from  any  position  in  the  stream  as  well 
as  from  its  etfge.  We  will  take  the  example  he  has 
cited  :  Mat.  iii.  13 — "Then  cometh  Jesus  apo  from  Gali- 
lee to  Jordan."  Does  this  mean  from  the  boundary 
line,  from  the  country  bordering,  or  out  of  Galilee  '. 
When  we  say  Dr.  S.  came  from  Charleston  to  Augusta, 
do  we  mean  that  he  departed  from  a  region  outside  of 
and  next  to  the  boundary  line  of  the  one  city,  and  that 
he  stopped  as  soon  as  he  touched  the  line  that  bounds 
the  corporate  limits  of  the  other  ?  Do  you  still  cavil  ? 
Then  I  will  force  you  to  acknowledge  that  apo  brought 
him  out  of  Go^^k  Mark  i.  9,  gives  an  account  of  the 
same  journey  :  toom^  elthen  apo  Nazaret  tes  Galilaias, 
".Jesus  came  from  Nazareth  of  Galilee,  and  was  baptized 
of  John  in  Jordan."  Nazareth  was  a  city  in  Galilee. 
In  coming,  therefore,  from  a  city  in  Galilee,  he  came  out 
of  Galilee.  Apo  brought  him  out  of  Galilee,  and  apo 
brought  him  out  of  the  water.  "  We  pronounce  this  a 
demonstration."     Summers,  p.  89. 

If  en  does  not  express  intusposition,  there  is  no  prepo- 
sition in  the  Greek  language  that  can  express  it ;  and  if 
neither  en  nor  eis  singly,  nor  both  combined,  could  carry 
John  and  his  subjects  into  the  water,  then  we  would  un- 
dertake to  show  that  the  Greeks  never  were  in  the  water, 


60  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

nor  in  any  thing  else,  themselves — that  they  never  did 
conceive  of  any  person  or  thing  in  the  water,  in  the 
house,  or  in  any  thing  else,  of  which  intusposition  can 
be  predicted!  They  may  have  been  at  the  house,  or  on 
the  house,  or  near  the  house — they  may  have  gone  to 
the  water,  but  they  never  occupied  a  position  in,  nor 
entered  into  either  !  The  Greeks  were,  therefore,  more 
afflicted  with  hydrophobia  than  our  anti-"immersionist" 
opponents  themselves !  Need  any  more  be  said  to  con- 
vince any  unprejudiced  mind  that  our  adorable  Redeemer 
was  immersed  by  John  in  Jordan?  "Were  we  not 
apprized  of  the  pertinacity  with  which  the  mind  of  man 
holds  fast  to  an  opinion  once  received,  howsoever  clearly  its 
erroneousness  may  be  demonstrated,  we  should  certainly 
think  it"  (p.  92)  not  impossible  for  the  above  argument 
to  convince  even  Dr.  Summers.  But  we  hasten  to  assure 
him  that  we  have  not  the  vanity  to  exnj|t  such  a  result, 
lest  he  may  apply  to  us  the  remark,  ""^j  1  miracles  will 
not  some  men  attempt  to  perform  !"  (lb.)  "  We  are 
bold  to  say  that  'the  above  argument  to  show  that  Christ 
was  immersed  in  Jordan,'  has  nothing  to  fear  from  the 
labor,  learning,  sophistry,  or  ignorance  of  its  impugners 
...  as  nothing  can  prove  that  false  which  is  demon- 
strably true."  p.  123.  We  close  this  section  with  a  quo- 
tation from  one  of  the  most  distinguished  pedobaptists 
of  the  present  century.  "  He  (Christ)  it  was  that  should 
baptize  them  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire  ;  that  is 
to  say,  that  as  his  (John's)  followers  were  entirely  im- 
mersed in  the  water,  so  the  Messiah  would  immerse  the 
souls  of  believers  in  the  Holy  Ghost  imparted  by  him 


BAPTISM    IS    IMMERSION.  61 

self;  so  that  it  should  thoroughly  penetrate  their  being, 
and  form  within  them  a  new  principle  of  life.  And  this 
Spirit-baptism  was  to  be  accompanied  by  a  baptism  of 
fire.  Those  who  refuse  to  be  penetrated  by  the  Spirit 
of  the  Divine  life,  should  be  destroyed  by  the  fire  of  the 
Divine  judgments." — "  Neanders  Life  of  Christ,"  p.  53. 

Section  II. — John's  Baptism,  Christian  Baptism. 

Surely  it  would  seem  that  if  the  Saviour  was  baptized, 
and  we  could  ascertain  in  what  way  he  submitted  to  the 
ordinance,  there  should  be  no  longer  a  difference  of  opin- 
ion and  of  practice  among  his  followers.  All  should 
esteepi  it  a  duty  and  a  privilege  to  follow  his  footsteps  in 
this  also,  even  though  they  should  lead  them  all  down 
into  the  liquid  wave.  And  let  pious  writers  beware  how, 
even  in  the  heat  of  controversy,  they  characterize  the 
feeling  which  prompts  Christians  to  imitate  their  adora- 
ble Redeemer,  by  the  contemptuous  epithets  "  poetry 
and  sentiment alism."  (Summers,  p.  106.)  The  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  commands  his  followers  to  be  baptized ;  and 
lie  consecrated  the  ordinance  by  submitting  to  it  him- 
self. Does  he  command  all  to  be  baptized,  and  was  he 
baptized  himself  \  Then  the  ordinance  in  form  that  he 
submitted  to,  is  the  baptism  that  his  followers  are  to  sub- 
mit to,  And  multitudes  will  obey  his  command,  and 
esteem  it  a  privilege  to  follow  literally  his  example, 
though  those  who  ought  to  respect  the  feeling,  though 
misguided,  by  which  they  are  influenced,  and  who  ought 
to  be  more  careful  to  show  reverence  for  that  Saviour 
whom  they  profess  to  love,  should  attempt  to  divert  them 


62  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

by  ridicule  and  opprobrious  epithets.  As  in  other  things, 
in  this  also,  it  is  their  desire  that  "  the  same  mind  may 
be  in  them  Avhich  was  also  in  Christ  Jesus."  Dr,  Sum- 
mers knows  the  influence  this  feeling  has  upon  the  pious 
hearts— or,  as  he  contemptuously  expresses  it,  "  to  beguile 
unstable  souls" — and  hence  the  effort  by  him  and  his 
coadjutors  to  neutralize  it,  b}7  a  ridicule  that  borders  very 
near  upon  rudeness  to  us  and  irreverence  to  Christ.  The 
Saviour,  as  we  have  shown,  was  immersed  in  baptism.  In 
submitting  to  this  ordinance,  he  set  us  an  example,  which 
in  obedience  to  his  command,  we  are  to  follow  ;  and  in 
the  epithets  our  opponents  apply  to  us  for  this,  and  in 
the  disparaging  remarks  which  they  make  about  John's 
baptism  of  Christ,  they  may  display  the  policy  of  the 
partisan,  but  they  fall  very  short  of  exhibiting  the  reve- 
rence of  the  Christian.     But  here  it  is  objected, 

"  Have  we  not  time  and  again  asserted  that  John's 
baptism  was  not  Christian  baptism,  and  given  our  rea- 
sons ;  and  have  we  not  maintained  that  his  baptism  of 
Christ  was  different  from  his  ordinary  baptism  ;  and  do 
we  not  maintain  that  you  have  no  right  to  reason  from 
John's  baptism  to  that  instituted  in  Christ's  commission  ? 
Even  though  we  may  grant  that  Christ  was  immersed,  it 
will  avail  you  nothing ;  since  John's  baptism  was  not  the 
Christian  baptism."  Very  well ;  your  objections  shall 
all  be  brought  forward,  though  I  fear  my  readers  may 
accuse  you  or  me,  or  both  of  us,  cf  frivolity  when  they 
see  them.     But  I  observe — 

1.  Even  if  it  be  granted  that  John's  was  not  Christian 
baptism,  the  argument  from  it  to  show  what  the  act  of 


BAPTISM    IS    IMMERSION.  63 

baptism  is,  would  not  be  affected.  If  John's  ordinance 
differed  in  never  so  many  particulars  from  the  Christian 
ordinance,  it  nevertheless  shows  what  baptism  is.  If  the 
same  words  that  express  the  act  are  used  in  Christ's  or- 
dinance that  were  used  in  John's,  and  if  it  be  shown  that 
in  John's  those  words  express  immersion,  then  it  fol- 
lows that  the  same  words,  when  used  in  the  Christian 
ordinance,  express  immersion  too.  This  is  an  argument 
the  force  of  which  cannot  be  weakened,  Now  we  have 
shown  that  baptism  in  John's  ordinance  means  immer- 
sion ;  therefore,  the  same  word  when  used  in  Christ's  or- 
dinance means  immersion  also. 

2.  But  you  shall  not  deprive  us  of  the  grateful  convic- 
tion, that  in  submitting  to  immersion  we  are  "  following 
Christ ;"  nor  shall  you  deprive  our  side  of  the  influ- 
ence of  the  Saviour's  example.  In  spite  of  all  your  ob- 
jections, we  are  prepared  to  show  that  John's  was  the 
Christian  baptism.  "  But  how  can  that  be  ?  For  bap- 
tism to  be  a  Christian  ordinance,  is  it  not  essential  that 
it  should  have  been  instituted  by  Christ  ?"  John's  bap- 
tism was  instituted  by  Christ.  "  But  does  not  John  say 
himself,  (John  i.  31,  33,)  'I  knew  him  not :  but  he  that 
sent  me  to  baptize  with  water,  the  same  said  unto  me — 
upon  whom  thou  shalt  see  the  spirit  descending,  the 
same  is  he.'  John  knew  him  not,  and  some  one  else 
('he  that  sent  me  to  baptize,')  promised  lO  identify 
Christ  to  him  by  the  descent  of  the  spirit."  To  this,  I 
answer,  John  did  know  the  person  of  the  Saviour  ;  for 
(1)  they  were  cousins  according  to  the  flesh,  (Luke  i.,) 
and  (2)  his  hesitation,  before  the  descent  of  the  spirit,  to 


64  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

baptize  him,  showed,  not  only  that  he  knew  him  per- 
sonally, but  that  he  recognized  in  him  one  greatly  supe- 
rior to  himself.  That  he  did  not  know  that  this  person, 
his  cousin,  and  his  recognized  superior,  was  the  glorious 
personage  whom  he  was  to  manifest  to  Israel,  may  be 
inferred  from  the  record  ;  but  that  he  did  know  the  in- 
dividual, Jesus  of  Nazareth,  is  as  clearly  inferred. 

"  But  if  he  had  a  personal  acquaintance  with  Christ, 
how  happened  it  that  he  did  not,  at  the  time  when 
Christ  commissioned  him,  perceive  that  he  was  the  per- 
son himself  to  be  manifested  to  Israel — why  wait  for  the 
descent  of  the  Spirit  ?  And,  besides,  Christ  did  not  en- 
ter upon  his  public  ministry  until  he  was  baptized  ;  how 
could  he  then  before  that  time  institute  his  ordinance, 
and  commission  John  V  How  much  John  knew  of  Christ, 
and  in  what  way  "  he  that  sent  him  to  baptize"  caused 
John  to  apprehend  his  mission,  we  know  not,  for  it  is  not 
revealed  to  us.  That  Christ  did  not  enter  upon  his  pub- 
lic ministry  until  his  baptism,  I  grant ;  and  that  he  did 
not  appear  to  John,  and  by  the  word  of  mouth,  and  in 
the  person  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth  commission  him,  may 
be  granted  also  ;  though,  if  I  should  assert  the  contrary, 
it  would  be  difficult  for  you  to  disprove  it.  Who  was  he 
that  sent  John  to  baptize  ?  Do  you  answer,  "  The  First 
Person  in  the  Trinity  ?"  If  so,  in  what  way  did  he  appear 
to  John  ?  In  a  bodily  shape  ?  But  God  is  a  Spirit,  and 
no  man  hath  seen  him,  nor  can  any  one  see  him  and  live. 
That  John's  baptism  was  from  heaven,  we  know ;  and 
his  commission  to  baptize — in  what  way  soever  it  was 
bestowed  upon  him — we  affirm  was  conferred  by  Christ. 


BAPTISM   IS   IMMERSION-.  65 

The  Second  Person  of  the  adorable  Trinity  has  always 
ruled  in  the  Kingdom  of  Grace  ever  since  the  fall  of 
man.  He  was  the  Prophet,  Priest  and  King  of  the 
penitent  Adam,  as  much  as  he  is  of , his  followers  in  the 
present  day.  He,  as  the  Prophet,  gave  through  his 
Spirit  all  the  Revelation  that  man  has  ever  received ; 
and  he  is  the  author  of  all  the  scriptural  institutions  under 
the  old  as  well  as  under  the  new  dispensation.  He  was 
the  Angel  of  the  Covenant  that  called  Abraham  from 
his  country,  appeared  to  him  on  the  plains  of  Mamre, 
and  gave  him  his  covenant — that  appeared  to  Hagar  in 
the  wilderness,  and  that  wrestled  with  Jacob  at  Peniel. 
He  appeared  to  Moses  in  the  burning  bush,  and  gave 
the  law  to  the  Israelites  at  Mount  Sinai.  He  led  the 
people  through  the  wilderness,  and  was  in  the  Shekinah 
over  the  mercy  seat.  He  walked  with  the  three  He- 
brew children  in  the  fiery  furnace.  In  short,  he  has 
always  been  head  over  all  things  to  the  church,  though 
not  manifested  or  declared  to  be  so  until  after  his  resur- 
rection ;  and  he  was  the  ordainer  of  all  the  institutions 
and  ordinances  given  to  his  people  under  all  the  dispen- 
sations from  Adam  to  the  present.  "  But  is  not  this 
train  of  remark  suicidal  to  your  assertion  that  John's  was 
Christian  baptism  ?  Then  it  follows  it  would  seem,  that 
John's  baptism,  being  no  more  than  the  passover  an 
institution  of  Christ,  was,  like  the  passover,  a  Jewish  in- 
stitution. And  this  brings  you  to  our  conclusion,  that 
John's  could  not  have  been  the  Christian  baptism,  since 
he  (John)  did  not  live  in  the  Christian  dispensation." 
It  is  a  favorite  purpose  with  you  and  those  with  whom 


66  BAPTISM   IN    ITS   MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

you  act,  to  make  "John's  baptism"  a  dispensation  by 
itself,  or  rather,  like  the  blank  leaf  between  the  Old  and 
New  Testament,  to  make  it  belong  to  neither  dispensa- 
tion, and  to  teach  that  it  has  inscribed  upon  it  nothing 
that  is  profitable  either  for  doctrine  or  reproof,  or  cor- 
rection, or  instruction  in  righteousness.  But  the  au- 
thorities are  against  you.  Mark  says  (i.  1)  that  John 
baptized  in  the  wilderness  in  "the  beginning  of  the' 
Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God."  The  Saviour 
asserts  the  same.  Mat.  xi.  12,  13 — "And  from  the  days 
of  John  the  Baptist  until  now,  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
suffereth  violence,  and  the  violent  take  it  by  force.  For 
all  the  prophets  and  the  law  prophesied  until  John." 
Luke  xvi.  16 — "The  law  and  the  prophets  were  until 
John  :  since  that  time,  the  kingdom  of  God  is  preached, 
and  every  man  presseth  into  it."  And  after  the  resur- 
rection of  Christ,  when  the  disciples  were  assembled  to- 
gether to  elect  an  apostle  in  the  place  of  the  traitor  Judas^ 
Peter  asserted  the  same  thing  in  the  following  proposi- 
tion :  Acts  i.  21 — "  Wherefore  of  these  men  which  have 
companied  with  us  all  the  time  that  the  Lord  Jesus  went 
in  and  out  among  us — beginning  from  the  baptism  of 
John,  until  that  same  day  that  he  was  taken  from  us — 
must  one  be  ordained  to  be  a  witness  with  us  of  his 
resurrection. 

"  But,"  you  inquire,  "  what  then  does  the  Saviour 
mean  when  he  says  :  Among  them  that  are  born  of  wo- 
men there  hath  not  risen  a  greater  than  John  the  Bap- 
tist ;  notwithstanding  he  that  is  least  in  the  kingdom- of 
heaven  is  greater  than  he  ?     John  himself  declared, '  the 


BAPTISM    IS    IMMERSION.  67 

kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand.'  Does  not  this  seem  to 
imply  that  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  or  the  gospel  dispen- 
sation, had  not  as  yet  been  ushered  in  ?"  John's  supe- 
riority to  Isaiah  and  other  prophets  did  not  consist  in 
mental  and  moral  attainments,  nor  in  the  greater  num- 
ber of  revelations  imparted  to  him  ;  but  simply  in  the 
fact  that  his  ministry  brought  him  into  immediate  rela- 
tions with  the  Redeemer — because  it  was  his  province 
to  prepare  the  way  of  the  Lord  and  to  manifest  him  to 
Israel.  Like  the  older  prophets,  he  may  have  been  com- 
missioned to  publish  revelations,  the  full  import  of  which 
he  may  not  have  understood  (1  Peter  i.  10,  11  ;)  and 
like  Peter  and  the  other  disciples,  before  the  outpouring 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  he  may  have  attached  gross  and  in- 
adequate ideas  to  the  mission  of  Christ.  The  kingdom 
of  heaven  was  set  up  with  power  and  in  the  demonstra- 
tion of  the  Spirit  on  the  day  of  pentecost,  when  those 
things  which  Christ  had  taught  his  disciples,  and  which 
they  had  not  fully  understood,  were  "  brought  to  their 
remembrance,"  and  their  spiritual  import  was  revealed 
to  them.  Before  that  time,  Peter  rejected  the  doctrine 
of  the  vicarious  sufferings  of  Christ,  but  on  that  occasion, 
enlightened  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  he  preached,  in  all  its 
proportions,  the  glorious  doctrine  of  Christ's  atonement. 
In  like  manner,  John,  though  greater  than  all  the 
prophets  on  account  of  the  dignity  of  his  office,  was  infe- 
rior to  the  least  of  Christ's  followers  after  the  day  of 
pentecost,  in  the  spiritual  perception  of  divine  truths. 
"  The  kingdom  of  heaven,  or  the  gospel  dispensation," 
had  come  before  the  day  of  pentecost,  but  its  nature 


68  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE   AND    SUBJECTS. 

was  better  discerned  by  its  subjects  after  that  memora- 
ble day. 

"  But,"  you  say,  "  the  gospel  dispensation  was  not  in- 
troduced till  the  crucifixion  of  Christ :  and  a  gospel 
ordinance  could  not  have  been  introduced  before  the  in- 
troduction of  the  gospel  dispensation."  To  use  the  lan- 
guage of  Dr.  Summers,  "  this  has  the  singular  infelicity 
of  contradicting "  Christ,  and  Mark,  and  Peter,  who  all 
assert  that  John's  baptism  was  "the  beginning  of  the 
gospel."  You  err,  by  not  noticing  the  difference  be- 
tween the  existence  and  the  more  clear  manifestation  of  a 
thing.  And  besides,  is  this  not  saying  that  "  the  Lord's 
Supper"  is  not  a  gospel  ordinance,  as  it  was  instituted 
before  the  resurrection,  and  even  before  the  death  of 
Christ? 

"  What,  then,  will  you  do  with  the  case  of  the  '  certain 
disciples'  at  Ephesus,  Acts  xix.  1-7,)  whom  Paul  re- 
baptized  ?  Does  not  their  re-baptism  show  that  John's 
ordinance  was  different  from  the  Christian  ?"  To  this 
I  answer,  (1)  some  deny  that  there  was  a  re-baptism, 
and  maintain  that  verse  fifth  was  not  the  language  of 
the  historian,  but  a  continuation  of  the  discourse  of 
Paul.  "  Then  said  Paul,  John  verily  baptized  with  the 
baptism  of  repentance,  saying  unto  the  people,  that  they 
should  believe  on  him  which  should  come  after  him, 
that  is,  on  Christ  Jesus."  When  they  (that  is,  the  peo- 
ple) heard  this,  they  were  baptized  in  the  name  of  the 
Lord  Jesus."  And  it  would  be  a  very  difficult  matter 
for  you  to  reply  to  their  arguments.  If  this  was  a  case 
of  re-baptism,  it  seems  to  have  been  the  only  one.     An- 


BAPTISM   18    IMMERSION.  69 

drew,  and  Peter,  and  Philip,  and  Nathaniel,  and  Apol- 
los,  and  others,  submitted  to  no  other  than  John's  ordi- 
nance, and  we  have  no  hint  that  they  were  re-baptized. 
So  that  even  if  it  be  granted  that  these  twelve  were  re- 
baptized,  one  instance  can  prove  nothing  against  John's 
ordinance,  while  there  are  hundreds  of  instances  testify- 
ing in  its  favor.     But, 

2.  I  believe  with  yob.  that  the  ordinance  was  repeated. 
I  will  grant  this  to  you,  and  then  use  it  as  a  club  with 
which  to  break  your  head — metaphorically  and  good- 
humoredly.  It  is  not  stated  that  they  were  baptized  by 
John,  but  "  unto  John's  baptism."  And  the  fact  that 
they  had  "not  so  much  as  heard  whether  there  be  any 
Iloly  Ghost,"  showed  that  they  had  been  immersed  by 
an  incompetent  administrator  ;  for  it  was  the  custom  of 
the  first  Baptist,  as  it  should  be  of  all  his  successors,  to 
speak  at  the  water's  side  and  explain  to  the  people  the 
nature  and  intent  of  his  ordinance.  In  these  addresses, 
it  was  his  custom  to  enlighten  the  people  in  regard  to 
the  relation  which  his  ordinance  sustained  to  the  Father, 
the  Son  and  the  Holy  Ghost.  (See  John,  iii.  27-36.) 
Because  of  defect  in  the  administrator,  therefore,  the 
ordinance  was  vitiated,  even  though  it  may  have  been 
correct  in  form.  It  furnishes  us,  consequently,  an  in- 
spired precedent  for  the  re-baptism  of  all*  who  come  to 
us  from  your  communion,  whether  "  they  had  been  ap- 


*  It  is  proper  to  state  that  there  is  not  entire  unanimity  among  the  Bap- 
tists on  this  question.  Some  valued  brethren  are  of  opinion,  that  those 
should  not  be  baptized  on  their  reception  into  Otis  churches,  who  have  been 
already  immersed  in  other  denominations. 


70  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

plied  to  the  element,  or  the  element  to  them."  (Sum- 
mers passim.) 

"But  we  have  other  objections  still,  to  show  that 
John's  could  not  have  been  the  Christian  baptism,  even 
though  it  be  granted  that  you  have  satisfactorily  an- 
swered those  already  urged."  Yes,  I  know.  We  need 
no  confession  from  you  to  make  us  acknowledge  that 
you  are  a  very  objectionable  people,  as  far  as  your  ad- 
ministration of  this  ordinance  is  concerned.  But  bring 
them  forward,  and  Ave  will  permit  them  to  have  all  the 
weight  to  which  they  are  entitled. 

"  John's  could  not  have  been  the  Christian  ordinance, 
for  it  was  '  the  baptism  of  repentance,'  and  it  was  admin- 
istered only  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus."  To  this  I 
answer,  so  was  Christ's  ordinance  the  baptism  of  repen- 
tance, and,  if  the  commission  were  out  of  the  question, 
it  could  be  made  as  plausibly  to  appear  that  his  disciples, 
after  his  resurrection  administered  it  only  in  his  name. 
Acts  ii.  38— "Repent  and  be  baptized  every  one  of  you 
in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ"  Acts  viii.  16 — "For  as5 
yet  he  was  fallen  upon  none  of  them,  (the  people  of 
Samaria,)  only  they  were  baptized  in  the  name  of  the 
Lord  Jesus."  Acts  x.  48 — "  Then  he  (Peter)  com- 
manded them  (the  household  of  Cornelius)  to  be  baptized 
in  the  name  of  the  Lord."  Acts  xix.  5 — "  When  they 
heard  this,  they  were  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord 
Jesus."  Now,  we  know  that  the  disciples  baptized  in 
the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  because  they  were  commanded  so  to  do ;  but  if 
we  had  nothing  more  than  the  accounts  of  their  adminis- 


BAPTISM    IS    IMMERSION.  *71 

trations  of  the  ordinance,  we  would  find  it  more  easy  to 
prove  from  the  record  that  John  used  this  formula  than 
that  they  did.  We  know  that  John,  in  his  addresses  at 
the  water's  side,  brought  distinctly  to  view  the  persons 
and  offices  of  the  Father,  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  As  an  example,  take  the  following:  "The 
Father  loveth  the  Son,  and  hath  given  all  things  into 
his  hand.  He  that  believeth  on  the  Son  hath  everlast- 
ing life  ;  and  he  that  believeth  not  the  Son  shall  not 
see  life  ;  but  the  wrath  of  God  abideth  on  him."  John 
iii.  35,  36.  "  He  that  cometh  after  me  is  mightier  than 
I;  he  shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost,'1''  &c. 
Matt.  iii.  1 1  ;  see  also  Mark  i.  8.  "  I  indeed  have  bap- 
tized you  with  water ;  but  he  shall  baptize  you  with  the 
Holy  Ghost"  And  we  know  that  one  item  of  the  defi- 
ciency in  the  baptism  of  the  twelve  at  Ephesus,  was  their 
ignorance  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  and  that  Paul  seemed  to 
be  surprised  at  it.  In  every  instance  of  the  administra- 
tion of  baptism  by  the  disciples,  the  name  of  the  Lord 
Jesus  is  the  only  one  mentioned ;  and  the  remarks  made 
by  them,  in  connection  with  the  ordinance,  hint  no  more 
than  do  those  of  John,  that  the  ordinance  had  any  con- 
nection with  the  Father  and  the  Holy  Ghost.  I  know 
not,  nor  is  it  material  for  my  argument  to  show,  that 
John  used  the  formula  prescribed  by  Christ,  but  the 
record  plainly  shows  that  his  ordinance  also  had  a  rela- 
tion to  all  the  persons  of  the  Trinity ;  and  that  he  so 
understood  and  taught. 

"  But  though  we  should  grant  (which  we  are  unwil- 
ling to  do")  (yes,  I  know)  "  that  John's  was  the  Chris- 


72  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

tian  baptism,  it  will  be  of  no  service  to  you,  in  proving 
that  Christ  set  us  an  example  which  we  are  to  follow. 
Christ  did  not  submit  to  John's  ordinary  baptism  ;  since 
he  could  not  be  said  to  repent."  Where  did  you  find 
that  word  "  ordinary  ?"  I  read  nowhere  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, where  John's  ordinance  is  divided  into  ordinary 
and  extraordinary.  This  word  is  invented  by  yourself; 
and  we  shall  presently  find  you  basing  an  argument 
upon  it,  in  your  attempt  to  show  why  Christ  was  bap- 
tized at  all.  But  it  is  no  better  foundation  than  that  upon 
which  the  philosophical  old  lady  based  the  earth.  The 
story  may  seem  to  you  out  of  place  in  a  grave  discus- 
sion of  a  theological  question ;  but  you  will  please  let 
its  pertinency  as  an  illustration  atone  for  what  may  seem 
'to  you  its  lack  of  dignity.  A  venerable  dame  of  the  old 
school  encounters  a  boy,  who  has  just  been  introduced 
into  the  mysteries  of  natural  philosophy  in  a  neighbor- 
ing academy,  when  the  following  conversation  ensues: 
"  I  hear,  my  son,  your  teacher  tells  you  that  the  earth 
rests  on  nothing."  "  Yes  ma'am ,  and  is  it  not  true  ?" 
"  No ;  it  rests  on  a  great  big  rock."  "  And  what  does 
the  rock  rest  on  ?"  "  Why  on  another  rock,  to  be  sure." 
"And  what  does  that  rest  on?"  "Why  la!  child,  are 
you  so  simple  as  not  to  know  that  there  are  rocks  all 
the  way  down  I"  You  have  no  right  to  base  an  argu- 
ment on  the  word  ordinary,  unless  the  Scriptures  give 
that  word  as  a  foundation.  And  like  the  old  lady's 
earth,  your  argument  will  not  be  sustained,  unless  its 
"  ordinary  "  support  extends  "  all  the  way  down."  John 
administered  the  same   rite  t:    Christ  that  he  did  to 


BAPTISM   IS    IMMERSION.  73 

others.  "Are  we  to  understand  you  to  say,  then,  that 
Christ  had  something  to  repent  of,  and  that  John's  bap- 
tism was  to  him  the  baptism  of  repentance  ?"  No  ;  he 
was  "holy,  harmless,  undefiled  and  separate  from  sin- 
ners." "He  did  no  sin,  neither  was  guile  found  in  his 
mouth."  "  What,  then,  did  his  baptism  signify  ?  and 
why  did  he  submit  to  the  ordinance  ?"  It  signified  his 
obedience  to  law;  and  he  submitted  for  the  reason 
that  he  gave,  viz. :  to  "fulfil  all  righteousness."  He 
was  not  only  God,  but  man  ;  and  in  the  latter  character, 
it  became  him  to  stand  out  on  the  side  of  his  cause,  and 
to  set  his  followers  and  all  the  world  an  example. 
Again,  though  he  had  no  sins  of  his  own,  he  had  those 
of  his  people  laid  on  him  as  their  substitute.  I  cannot 
forbear  to  quote  here  from  the  Rev.  Charles  Bradley, 
vicar  of  Glasbury,  a  minister  of  the  "  Church  of  Eng- 
land" and  a  pedobaptist.  "He  stands  here  as  the 
representative  of  his  people.  Now,  they  are  an  unclean 
people And  now  look  at  the  Lord  Jesus.  It  mat- 
ters not  how  pure  he  may  be  in  himself,  he  comes  forth 
as  the  representative  of  the  impure,  and  as  such  he  must 
submit  to  that  ordinance  which  is  emblematical  of  the 
cleansing  they  need."  "  Is  there  in  the  wide  creation 
some  being  constituted  the  head  of  this  people  ?  Then 
it  is  meet  and  right  that  he  should  go  down  into 
the  waters  through  which  they  have  to  pass :  that  he 
should  sanction  the  ordinance  of  his  own  appointment ; 
that  he  should  teach  all  who  come  after  him  to  reverence 
and  obey  it."     (Sermons,  p.  198.) 

"  But,  then,  if  Christ's  baptism  was  an  example  for 


*74  BAPTISM   IN   ITS  MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

us,  you  are  bound,  according  to  your  principles,  to  follow 
it  literally.  Christ  was  not  baptized  until  he  was  thirty 
years  of  age  ;  therefore,  none  of  his  followers  should  be." 
I  like  your  style  of  argument.  This  looks  to  you  very 
much  as  if  you  had  condemned  us  out  of  our  own 
mouths.  There  was  something,  as  you  will  grant,  pecu- 
liar in  the  case  of  our  Saviour,  which  rendered  it  proper 
for  him  to  defer  his  manifestation  to  Israel  to  the  age  of 
thirty.  What  that  was  you  are  as  responsible  for  as  we 
are.  But  there  is  nothing  of  this  kind  pertaining  to  any 
of  the  children  of  men.  God's  command  is  that  we 
should  seek  him  early — that  as  soon  as  we  come  to  the 
age  of  accountability,  we  should  repent  and  believe  the 
gospel ;  and  that  as  soon  as  we  believe,  we  should  be 
baptized  and  come  out  on  the  Lord's  side.  The  precept 
tells  us  when  we  should  repent  and  be  baptized  ;  and  the 
precept  and  example  both  tell  us  how  we  should  be  bap- 
tized. "But  those  that  were  baptized  by  John  before 
the  Saviour  did  not  have  the  benefit  of  his  example,  and 
did  not  folloio  him  in  baptism."  My  dear  sir,  this  is  but 
a  quibble.  On  the  same  principle,  Abraham  was  not 
his  follotver,  though  he  lived  and  died  in  the  faith. 

"  John's  baptism  pointed  to  Christ  -as  the  object  in 
whom  its  subjects  should  believe  :  How  could  Christ  be 
said  to  believe  in  himself  ?"  To  this  I  answer,  the  pass- 
over  pointed  to  the  sacrifice  upon  the  cross,  and  all  who 
partook  of  it  by  faith  looked  to  "  Christ,  our  Passover, 
sacrificed  for  us."  How  could  Christ,  by  partaking  of 
the  passover,  express  faith  in  himself,  when  he  died  not 
for  himself  but  for  the  sins  of  his  people  ?     Was  there 


BAPTISM    IS    IMMERSION.  75 

an  "  ordinary  "  and  an  extraordinary  passover  too  ?  In 
the  Lord's  supper,  the  bread  shows  his  body  broken  for 
us,  and  the  wine  his  blood  shed  for  us  ;  and  we  are  com- 
manded to  eat  and  to  drink  in  remembrance  of  him. 
The  ordinance  was  designed  for  the  use  of  sinners  atoned 
for  and  sanctified  by  the  broken  body  and  shed  blood  of 
Christ.  Did  he,  by  partaking  of  this  ordinance  with  his 
disciples,  confess  that  he  was  a  sinner,  and  profess  his 
faith  in  his  atoning  sacrifice  ?  Or  is  there  in  this  ordi- 
nance also,  the  "ordinary"  and  the  extraordinary?  It 
is  astonishing  that  you  do  not  think  of  these  things. 
Now,  we  have  given  above  a  sufficient  reason  to  show 
why  Christ  submitted  to  baptism  ;  but  in  the  very  terms 
in  which  you  explain  how  he  could  have  partaken  of  the 
Supper  without  confessing  himself  a  sinner,  and  profess- 
ing the  same  kind  of  faith  in  his  atonement  that  his 
people  do,  you  will  explain  how  he  could  submit  to  his 
other  ordinance  without  the  very  same  censequences. 
"  Are  we  to  understand,  then,  that  John's  baptism  and 
Christian  baptism  are  in  all  respects  the  same  ?"  Yes  ; 
as  the  morning  is  as  much  a  part  of  the  day  as  the 
meridian.  John's  baptism  was  the  "beginning,"  the 
dawn  of  the  gospel  day;  the  light  afterwards  shone 
with  greater  effulgence,  but  still  it  was  the  same  light 
increased. 

Having  answered  all  your  objections  and  responded 
to  all  your  inquiries,  I  will  take  the  liberty  of  putting 
you  upon  the  stand  now,  and  of  propounding  questions 
to  you  in  my  turn.  If  John's  baptism  was  not  Christian 
baptism,  what  was  it '.     The  works  of  your  wTriters  on 


76  BAPTISM   IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

baptism  relieve  us  from  the  charge  of  misrepresentation 
or  misapprehension,  when  we  suppose  that  this  question 
makes  you  "  reason  among  yourselves,"  as  the  scribes 
and  pharisees  did  when  a  similar  question  was  propounded 
to  them  by  our  Saviour :  "  If  we  shall  say  it  was  Chris- 
tian baptism,  the  Baptists  will  say — '  Why,  then,  do  you 
not  follow  it  ?'  If  we  shall  say  it  was  a  right  that  sig- 
nified nothing  to  us — a  mere  excrescence  on  the  Scrip- 
tures, and  profitable  to  us  neither  for  doctrine,  nor  re- 
proof, nor  correction,  nor  instruction  in  righteousness, 
'  all  the  people'  will  consider  that  we  are  irreverent  to 
and  reject  a  part  of  God's  word.  We  cannot  tell  what 
it  is."  The  baptism  of  Christ,  did  it  signify  anything 
or  nothing  ?  Did  he  submit  to  the  ordinance  with  any 
design,  or  was  it  a  mere  unmeaning  ceremony  ?  Why 
was  Christ  baptized  ?  Here  you  have  a  use  for  your 
word  extraordinary.  The  uses  of  John's  "  ordinary  bap- 
tism" you  "  cannot  tell ;"  but  you  have  learned  to  an- 
swer very  promptly  when  his  extraordinary  right  is  in 
question — though  your  answer  is  by  no  means  univocal. 
A  large  number  in  your  ranks,  respectable  for  piety  and 
learning,  protest  that  the  reason  given  is  unfounded  and 
ridiculous.  But  let  us  hear  your  answer  :  "  John's  bap- 
tism of  Christ  was  designed  to  initiate  him  into  the 
priestly  office.  The  priests  entered  upon  their  office  at 
the  age  of  thirty ;  and  the  right,  by  which  they  were 
inducted,  consisted  in  washing  or  a  copious  affusion, 
according  to  Ex.  xxix.  4 — '  And  Aaron  and  his  sons  thou 
shalt  bring  unto  the  door  of  the  tabernacle  of  the  congrega- 
tion, and  shalt  wash  them  with  water.'     In  like  manner, 


BAPTISM   IS    IMMERSION.  11 

Jesus,  who  was  a  priest,  was  at  thirty  years  of  age  in- 
ducted by  John  into  his  office."  To  this  I  answer,  (1.) 
there  is  no  such  statement  in  the  Scriptures.  Nowhere 
are  we  told  that  John  inducted  Christ  into  his  priestly 
office  by  baptism  ;  and  it  is  not  apparent  that,  by  virtue 
of  his  birth,  John  was  the  administrator  to  induct  any 
priest  into  his  office.  Here  is  one  rock  on  another  rock, 
and  the  latter  rests  on  nothing.  An  argument  as  weighty 
as  yours  needs  a  stable  foundation.  (2.)  If  John  was  an 
authorized  administrator  of  the  right  of  priestly  induc- 
tion, the  place  to  "  wash"  the  priest  was  at  the  door  of 
the  tabernacle,  and  not  "  in  Jordan."  Lev.  viii.,  Exodus 
xxiv.  4,  <fec.  (3.)  If  the  baptism  was  the  washing,  what 
constituted  the  anointing,  and  where  were  the  priestly 
garments  with  which  he  was  to  be  invested  ? — all  of 
which  were  as  necessary  parts  of  the  inducting  rite  as 
the  washing.  See  Ex.  xxix.  4,  &c.  If  it  be  said  that 
the  descent  of  the  Spirit  constituted  the  anointing,  it 
cannot  be  shown  why  a  part  of  the  ceremony  was  literal 
and  natural,  another  supernatural,  and  another  totally 
omitted.  (4.)  If  Christ  was  formally  inducted  into  one  of 
his  offices,  why  not  into  the  others  ?  Why  was  he  not 
anointed  as  a  prophet,  and  anointed  and  crowned  as  a 
king  ?  (5.)  If  Christ's  baptism  by  John  was  the  wash- 
ing to  induct  him  into  the  priestly  office,  there  was  no 
propriety  in  his  saying  he  submitted  to  it  "  to  fulfill  all 
righteousness ;"  for  he  would  in  that  event  have  been 
perpetrating  an  innovation  upon  the  rite  delivered  by 
Moses.  The  ceremony  referred  to,  related  to  the  priests 
after  the  order  of  Levi,  and  not  after  the  order  of  Mel- 


78  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

chisedec.  "  For  the  priesthood  being  changed,  there  is 
made  of  necessity  a  change  also  of  the  law.  For  he  of 
whom  these  things  are  spoken  pertaineth  to  another 
tribe,  of  which  no  man  gave  attendance  at  the  altar. 
For  it  is  evident  that  our  Lord  sprang  out  of  Judah ;  of 
which  tribe  Moses  spake  nothing  concerning  priesthood." 
Heb.  vi.  12-14.  (6.)  If  John  baptized  Christ  to  induct 
him  into  office,  what  did  he  baptize  others  for  ?  Finally, 
if  John's  baptism  was  not  Christian  baptism,  and  if  the 
existence  of  the  latter  is  to  be  dated  with  the  giving  of 
the  commission,  what  kind  of  baptism  did  Christ's  dis- 
ciples administer  before  the  death  of  John  ?  See  John, 
iv.  1,  2. 

It  is  "remarkable  that  so  many  able  and  honest  men 
among  our  opponents,  should  fail  to  see  the  nature  and 
design  of  John's  mission,  when  they  are  so  plainly  nar- 
rated in  the  Scriptures.  We  are  unequivocally  told  that 
he  was  sent  to  prepare  the  way  of  the  Lord,  and  make 
his  paths  straight ;  and  that  his  baptism  was  designed  to 
make  ready  a  people  prepared  for  the  Lord.  (Luke 
i.  17.)  His  mission  was  to  prepare  by  preaching  repent- 
ance, and  by  baptism,  by  proclaiming  to  the  people  the 
near  approach  of  the  advent  of  Christ,  and  by  baptizing 
those  who  professed  repentance  and  faith  in  "  him  who 
was  to  come,"  to  make  ready  a  people  prepared  to  re- 
ceive and  follow  him  as  soon  as  he  was  manifested.  Con- 
sequently, we  find  him  pointing  to  Christ  as  soon  as  he 
was  baptized,  and  saying,  "Behold  the  Lamb  of  God 
which  taketh  away  the  sins  of  the  world ;"  and  imme- 
diately thereupon  we  see  Philip,  and  Peter,  and  Andrew, 


BAPTISM    IS    IMMERSION.  19 

and  Nathaniel,  leaving  him  and  following*  Christ.  It  is 
not  evident  that  John  baptized  very  many.  True,  "  they 
went  out  to  him,"  "  they  came  to  his  baptism,"  "  they 
went  out  for  to  see  ;"  and  we  are  even  told  that  there 
went  to  him  Jerusalem,  and  all  Judea,  and  all  the  region 
round  about  Jordan,  and  were  all  baptized  of  him  in 
Jordan,  confessing  their  sins ;  but  even  that  hyperbolical 
statement  does  not  show  more  than  that  some  of  all 
classes  from  all  those  places  were  baptized  ;  for  the  evan- 
gelist, after  the  sweeping  and  unlimited  statement,  goes 
on  to  say  that  some  who  came  to  his  baptism  were  re- 
jected ;  and  the  question  of  Christ — "what  went  ye  out 
for  to  see  ?" — implies  that  the  vast  majority  were 
attracted  by  mere  curiosity. 

It  is  amusing  to  see  the  extravagant  conjectures  made 
by  our  opponents  of  the  number  of  the  "  vast  multi- 
tudes "  baptized  by  him  ;  some  making  their  estimates 
even  as  high  as  two  or  three  millions  of  persons  (Sum- 
mers, p.  82) ;  and  then,  upon  this  shadowy  basis  going 
into  an  arithmetical  calculation  of  the  number  he  would 
have  to  baptize  every  day,  keeping  John,  poor  man,  in 
the  water,  day  and  night,  and  exhausting  him  by  the 
numberless  immersions  which  he  had  to  perform.  And 
Dr.  Summers,  more  cruel  than  the  rest,  adds  to  his  ex- 
haustion by  allowing  him  no  time  to  hunt  for  locusts 
and  wild  honey  in  the  wilderness  !  It  is  wonderful  that 
one  simple  remark,  made  by  the  evangelist  John  should 
not  have  relieved  them  from  their  extravagant  vagaries. 
"The  disciples  of  Jesus  made  and  baptized  more  disci- 
ples than  John."  (John  iv.  1.)     Now,  if  John  baptized 


80  BAPTISM   IN   ITS   MODE   AND    SUBJECTS. 

"all,"  where  were  the  subjects  for  Christ's  disciples? 
And  if  John  baptized  three  millions,  Christ's  disciples 
baptized  more  than  three  millions.  And,  consequently, 
the  baptized  hosts  of  John's  and  Christ's  disciples 
amounted  to  more  than  six  millions  of  souls — embracing 
in  their  number  nearly,  if  not  quite:  all,  of  the  Jewish 
people  !  While  the  fact  is,  we  have  no  evidence  that 
John  and  Christ's  disciples  altogether  baptized  as  many 
as  one  thousand  persons.  We  know  that  not  many  more 
than  five  hundred  saw  Christ  after  his  resurrection.  (1 
Cor.  xv.  6,  Matt,  xxviii.  10;  John  xx.  17.) 

Thus  we  have  shown  that  John's  was  Christian  bap- 
tism, and  thus  we  have  shown  that  the  baptism  of  our 
Saviour  was  an  example  for  us  to  follow.  The  discus- 
sion of  this  incidental  question  has  led  us  far  off  from 
the  line  of  our  argument ;  but  it  was  necessary  to  clear 
this  point  up  before  advancing.  This  our  opponents 
consider  an  impregnable  position,  and  we  were  com- 
pelled to  storm  it ;  for  it  is  a  principle  in  the  science  of 
war  never  to  leave  a  fortified  position  in  the  rear. 

The  reader  will  now  please  return  with  me  to  the 
point  to  which  we  had  attained  in  the  main  drift  of  the 
argument.  Our  position  was,  that,  besides  the  meaning 
of  the  word,  the  examples  of  baptism  in  the  Scriptures, 
where  the  details  are  given,  show  that  it  is  immersion, 
and  nothing  else. 

Section  III. — Baptism  of  the  Ethiopian  Eunuch. 
1.  The  evidence  to  show  the  immersion  of  the  Ethio- 
pian Eunuch  is,  if  possible,  even  more  forcible  than  that 


BAPTISM    IS    IMMERSION.  81 

to  show  that  Christ  was  immersed.  u  And  as  they  went 
on  their  Avay  they  came  unto  a  certain  water ;  and  the 
Eunuch  said,  See,  here  is  water  ;  what  doth  hinder  me 
to  be  baptized  ?  And  Philip  said,  If  thou  believest  with 
all  thine  heart  thou  mayest.  And  he  answered  and  said, 
I  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God.  And  he 
commanded  the  chariot  to  stand  still :  And  they  went 
down  both  into  the  loater,  both  Philip  and  the  Eunuch, 
and  he  baptized  him.  And  when  they  were  come  up  out 
of  the  water,  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  caught  away  Philip," 
&c.  Acts  viii.  36-39.  Here  we  are  told  that  they 
descended  into  the  water,  and,  as  if  to  make  it  more  for- 
cible still — nay,  as  if  to  provide  against  the  cavils  of  anti- 
"immersionists  "  of  the  present  day — the  historian  adds, 
both  Philip  and  the  Eunuch.  Why  descend  either  or 
both  into  the  water  if  immersion  was  not  essential  to  the 
ordinance  ?  Is  it  reasonable  to  suppose  that  Philip 
would  have  subjected  himself  and  the  Eunuch — far  from 
home,  and  while  on  a  journey — to  the  uncomfortableness 
and  risk  of  going  up  to  their  knees  or  waist  in  water, 
when  a  half  gill  of  water,  brought  by  a  servant  in  a  shell 
or  even  in  a  cup  formed  by  a  leaf,  would  have  sufficed  ? 
If  pouring  or  sprinkling  was  apostolic  baptism,  would  not 
a  little  water  dipped  up  in  the  hand  from  the  margin,  or 
sticking  to  the  fingers,  have  sufficed  ?  Would  any  sane 
man,  while  traveling,  just  for  the  pleasure  of  the  thing, 
and  for  no  reason  at  all,  wade  up  to  his  knees  or  waist  in 
water,  and  then,  stopping  by  the  wayside,  unpack  his 
baggage    for   dry   clothes,  or   travel    all  day  in   wet? 

And  shall  we  ascribe  to  Philip  conduct  which  would 
0 


82  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

subject  any  one  among  us  to  the  charge  of  lunacy? 
If  the  Holy  Ghost  had  informed  us  only  that  they 
went  down  into  the  water  to  administer  the  ordinance, 
position  in  the  element  would  have  been  clearly  mani- 
fested ;  but,  as  if  to  make  assurance  doubly  sure,  it  is 
added,  they  came  up  out  of  the  water.  This  was  de- 
signed, as  it  would  seem,  to  silence  all  cavil,  The  issu- 
ing out  of  the  water  was  necessarily  implied,  since  it  was 
not  to  be  presumed  that  they  would  remain  in  the  ele- 
ment after  the  administration  of  the  ordinance. 

Now  we  ask  Dr.  Summers,  suppose  he  were  traveling 
with  a  recent  convert,  situated  as  the  Eunuch  was,  and 
he  should  consent  to  baptize  him — which  he  would  have 
the  right  to  do  were  the  circumstances  the  same — when, 
on  a  journey,  in  a  wilderness,  far  from  any  house,  they 
arrived  at  water,  would  he  take  his  subject  up  to  the 
knees  or  waist,  or  even  up  to  the  ankles,  in  order  to  pour 
or  sprinkle  a  little  water  upon  him  ?  Here,  at  home 
when  he  has  a  turn  to  serve,  he  sometimes  does ;  but,  if 
he  were  situated  as  Philip  was,  would  he  proceed  into 
the  water  ?  And  if  he  would  consider  it  too  unneces- 
sary, too  dangerous,  and  too  foolish,  for  him,  why  should 
he  ascribe  such  a  course  to  Philip  ?  But  Dr.  S.  doubt- 
less would  reply,  "  I  would  not  go  into  the  water,  neither 
did  Philip.  The  prepositions  used  in  Greek  are  of  vari- 
ous meaning.  Luke  designed  to  say,  '  They  went  down 
both  cis,  to  the  water,  and  they  came  up  eh,  from  the 
water.'"  p.  100.  He  proceeds:  "When  eis  denotes 
into,  it  is  used  before  the  verb  as  well  as  before  the  noun. 
Thus :  '  they  entered  into  the  house  of  Lydia ' — eisclthon 


BAPTISM    IS    IMMERSION.  83 

eis  ten  Ludian.  Had  the  preposition  been  used  merely 
before  the  noun  and  not  also  before  the  verb,  it  would 
have  simply  expressed  motion  towards  the  house,  and 
not  entrance  into  it.  Agreeably  to  this  rule,  if  St.  Luke 
had  intended  to  say  that  Philip  went  into  the  water  with 
the  Eunuch,  he  would  have  put  the  preposition  before 
the  verb."  Hundreds  of  examples  are  furnished  by  the 
New  Testament  to  illustrate  this  rule.  Let  us  take  any 
two  chapters  at  random,  say  the  9th  and  10th  of  Luke, 
and  see  what  will  be  the  interesting  result  when  our 
author's  rule  is  applied.  Luke  ix.  10 — "And  he  took 
them  and  (upechorese)  went  aside  privately  (eis)  into  a 
desert  place."  Here  eis  is  not  repeated  before  the  verb, 
and  our  rule,  therefore,  takes  them  towards,  or  at  furthest, 
not  more  than  to  the  boundary  line  of  the  desert.  V.  12 
— u  Then  came  the  twelve  and  said  unto  him,  send  the 
multitude  away  that  (apelthontes)  they  may  go  (eis)  into 
the  towns  and  country  round  about,  and  lodge,  and  get 
victuals."  Here  again  the  preposition  is  not  repeated, 
and  our  rule  rivets  the  multitude  to  the  place  where  they 
were  ;  for  it  permits  them  to  go  neither  into  the  towns 
nor  into  the  country  round  about/  V.  44 — "Let  these 
sayings  (thesthe)  sink  down  (eis)  into  your  ears."  That 
is,  according  to  our  rule,  place  these  sayings  to,  but  let 
them  not  enter  into  your  ears.  "  For  the  Son  of  man 
(mellei  paradidosthai)  shall  be  delivered  (eis)  into  the 
hands  of  men."  That  is,  shall  be  delivered  to,  but  the 
hands  of  men  shall  not  grasp  him.  V.  51 — "  He  stead- 
fastly set  his  face  (poreuesthai)  to  go  (eis)  to  Jerusalem." 
Here  our  rule  arrests  him  on  the  confines  of  the  city. 


84  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

V.  56 — "And  (eporeuthesan)  they  went  [els)  to  another 
village."  That  is,  they  did  not  enter  into  it.  x.  1 — 
"After  these  things  the  Lord  appointed  other  seventy 
also,  and  (apesteileu)  sent  them  two  by  two  before  his 
face,  (eis)  into  every  city  and  place  whither  he  himself 
would  come."  If  the  seventy  understood  the  force  of 
our  author's  rule,  they  would  have  stopped  outside  of 
every  city  and  place  to  which  they  were  sent.  V.  2 — 
"  Pray  ye,  therefore,  the  Lord  of  the  harvest  that  (ekbale) 
he  would  send  forth  laborers  (eis)  into  his  harvest." 
That  is,  Dr.  Summers,  and  others  of  the  initiated,  who 
understand  this  rule,  pray  that  the  Lord  of  the  harvest 
would  send  laborers  to  the  fence,  on  the  outside  of  the 
enclosure  ;  but  we  unlearned  persons,  in  our  simplicity, 
pray  that  the  laborers  may  be  sent  into  the  field,  and 
put  to  work !  Again,  v.  7,  (inetabainete)  "  Go  not  (ek) 
from  house  (els)  to  house."  That  is,  I  suppose,  accord- 
ing to  the  rule  :  Go  not  as  idle  gazers  to  look  at  the 
outside  of  the  houses.  But  it  seems,  in  spite  of  the  rule, 
they  did  enter  into  the  cities  and  places.  V.  10 — "But 
(eis)  into  whatever  city  (eiserchesthe)  ye  enter,"  (in  v.  1, 
our  Saviour  (apesteilen  eis)  sent  them  to  the  city,  here 
he,  doubtless,  not  understanding  the  force  of  this,  rule, 
speaks  as  if  he  had  sent  them  into  the  city,)  "  and  they 
receive  you  not,  (exelthontes)  go  your  ways  out  (eis)  into 
the  streets  of  the  same,"  etc.  Our  rule  arrests  them  at 
the  threshold  of  the  door — it  carries  them  to  the  street 
door  and  no  further.  V.  30 — "A  certain  man  (Jcateba- 
inen  apo)  went  down  from  Jerusalem  (eis)  to  Jericho." 
That  is,  went  down  from  the  suburbs  of  Jerusalem  to  the 


BAPTISM    IS    IMMERSION.  85 

suburbs  of  Jericho.  V.  34 — "And  a  certain  Samaritan 
.  .  .  (egagcn)  brought  him  (eis)  to  an  inn,  and  took  care 
of  him."  That  is,  according  to  our  rule,  laid  him  down 
on  the  ground  outside  of  the  inn,  V.  38 — "Now  it 
came  to  pass  as  they  went  that  (eiselthen)  he  entered 
(eis)  into  a  certain  village,  (here  we  have  the  benefit  of 
our  rule,)  and  a  certain  woman  named  Martha  (upedex- 
ato)  received  him  (eis)  into  her  house  ;"  that  is,  accord- 
ing to  our  author's  rule,  made  him  stop  outside  of  her 
house.  And  so  may  Ave  go  on  multiplying  quotations. 
2.  Dr.  Summers's  examples  of  the  repetition  of  eis  as 
compounded  with  the  verb  and  as  governing  the  noun, 
is  limited  to  the  verb  eiserchomai.  JSrehomai  means  to 
go  and  eiserchomai  means  to  enter,  or  go  into.  Eiselthen 
eis  ten  oiJcian,  is  a  little  more  emphatic  perhaps,  but  it 
means  no  more  than  elthen  eis  ten  oikian,  as  far  as  the 
tendency  of  the  motion  is  concerned.  The  former  may 
be  translated,  "he  entered  into  the  house,"  and  the  lat- 
ter, "  he  went  into  the  house."  Both  these  expressions 
we  have  in  English  ;  and  if  we  attach  any  difference  to 
them,  it  is  that  in  the  former,  the  individual  is  already 
at  the  house,  and  has  only  to  step  in,  while  in  the  latter 
he  has  to  go  to  its  threshold  before  he  can  step  over  it 
and  into  the  interior  of  its  walls.  "A  preposition  in 
composition  often  retains  its  distinct  force  and  govern- 
ment as  such.  But  it  commonly  seems  to  be  regarded 
as  a  mere  adverb,  and  the  compound  to  be  construed 
just  as  a  simple  word  would  be  of  the  same  signification. 
Hence  the  preposition  is  often  repeated,  or  a  similar  pre- 
position introduced,  as — epeironto  eisballein  eis  ten  Kili- 


86  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

Man."     (Crosby's  Grk.  and  Gen.  Gram.,  §  882-5.     See 
also  Buttniann's  larger  Grk.  Gram.,  §  147,  N.  12.) 

3.  Though  we  grant  that  eis  signifies  rarely  motion 
towards  terminating  at  the  confines  of  the  object,  when 
the  object  is  penetrable  it  usually  signifies  motion  into 
it ;  and  its  signification  in  a  grammatical  sentence  can 
always  be  definitely  ascertained  by  the  circumstances,  or 
by  the  meaning  of  the  words  with  which  it  is  associated. 
In  this  case  it  is  associated  with  baptize,  which  we  have 
shown  means  only  to  immerse ;  with  udor,  water,  which 
is  a  penetrable  object ;  and  with  ek,  which  we  shall  show 
means  out  of  and  nothing  else.  To  immerse  the  Eu- 
nuch, entrance  into  the  water  was  necessary,  and  to  come 
out  of  the  water  implies  a  previous  entrance  into  it. 

4.  But  the  Scripture  use  of  the  phrase  with  which  eis 
is  connected  will  corroborate  our  argument.  The  Greek 
phrase  is  katebesan  eis  to  udor — they  went  down  into  the 
water.  Luke  x.  30 — "  A  certain  man  (katebainen  arpo) 
went  down  from  Jerusalem  (eis)  to  Jericho."  That  is, 
went  out  of  Jerusalem  into  Jericho.  Luke  xviii.  14 — 
"I  say  unto  you  he  (the  publican)  (katebe)  went  down 
(eis)  to  his  house,  justified  rather  than  the  other."  Did 
he  go  down  only  to  the  outside  of  his  house  ?  Luke 
viii.  23 — "Then  came  down  (katebe)  a  storm  of  wind 
(eis)  on  the  lake  ;"  i.  e.  into  the  area  of  the  lake.  John 
ii.  12 — "After  this  (katebe)  he  came  down  (eis)  to  Ca- 
pernaum." Does  it  mean  that  he  stopped  at  the  sub- 
urbs? Acts  vii.  15 — "And  Jacob  (katebe)  went  down 
(eis)  to  Egypt."  Does  it  mean  that  he  stopped  at  the 
confines  ?    Acts  xiv.  25 — "  And  when  they  had  preached 


BAPTISM    19    IMMERSION.  8*7 

the  word  in  Perga  (katebesan)  they  went  down  (eis)  to 
Troas,"  or  into  Troas.  Acts  xviii.  22  (katebe) — "He 
went  down  [eis)  to  Antioch."  Acts  xxv.  6 — "He  went 
down  (eis)  unto  C«sarea,"  or  in  Caesarea.  Rom.  x.  V 
— u  Who  shall  (katabesetai)  descend  (eis)  into  the  deep  V9 
Eph.  iv.  9 — "  Now  that  he  ascended,  what  is  it  but  that 
he  also  (katebe)  descended  first  (eis)  into  the  lower  parts 
of  the  earth."  Mark  xiii.  15 — "And  let  him  that  is  on 
the  house-top  not  (katabato  eis)  go  down  into  the  house." 
Rev.  xiii.  13 — "He  maketh  fire  (katabainein)  to  come 
down  from  heaven  (eis)  on  the  earth" — i.  e.  into  the 
area  of  the  earth.  These  are  all  the  instances  in  the 
New  Testament  where  this  Greek  phrase  is  used  in  con- 
nection with  eis.  There  is  one  other  example  in  which 
the  phrase  is  used  not  with  eis  but  with  epi;  and  it 
gives  the  finishing  touch  to  the  refutation  of  our  author's 
criticism  on  eis.  John  vi.  16,  17 — "And  when  even 
was  come,  his  disciples  (batebesan  epi)  went  down  unto 
the  sea,  and  entered  (eis)  into  a  ship,"  etc.  From  a  col- 
lation of  all  the  passages  then  of  the  use  of  katabaino 
with  eis,  we  find  that  when  descent  into  is  to  be  ex- 
pressed, eis  is  used,  and  that  when  descent  to  is  to  be 
expressed,  epi  is  used.  Following  then  the  example  of 
the  phrase  in  all  the  other  places  in  which  it  is  used  in 
the  New  Testament,  katebesan  eis  to  udor  in  the  account 
of  the  baptism  of  the  Eunuch,  is  to  be  translated,  '"they 
went  down  (both)  into  the  water."  It  will  be  seen  that 
here  again  we  have  made  "the  language  of  the  Scrip- 
tures its  own  authoritative  interpreter." 

5.  The  examples  which  Dr.  S.  has  given  to  show  that 


88  BAPTISM    IN    ITS   MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

eis  means  something  else  than  into,  will  nearly  all  of 
them  testify  against  him  if  the  force  of  the  Greek  idiom 
is  observed.  Rom.  xvi.  19 — "I  would  have  you  wise 
(eis)  unto  that  which  i&  good,  and  simple  (eis)  concern- 
ing evil."  The  Greek  idiom  is  "  wise  into  the  good  and 
simple  into  the  evil ;"  as  the  English  idiom  is  wise  in 
the  good  and  simple  in  the  evil.  Acts  viii.  40 — "Philip 
was  found  (eis)  at  Azotus."  The  sentence  is  elliptical, 
and  eis  shows  motion  into  terminating  within  Azotus. 
Luke  xv.  22 — "Put  a  ring  (eis)  on  his  hand  and  shoes 
eis  on  his  feet."  "  Surely,"  says  Dr.  S.,  "  not  into  his 
hand,"  etc.  Yes,  I  say,  into,  according  to  the  Greek 
idiom.  We  say  on  his  hand,  etc.,  but,  literally,  the  ring 
is  not  put  on  his  hand,  but  his  finger,  a  part  of  his  hand, 
is  put  into  it ;  and  when  so,  it  is  more  literally  put  into 
than  on  his  hand  :  so  in  regard  to  the  shoes.  Literally, 
the  feet  are  placed  into  them,  but  idiomatically,  in  Eng- 
lish, on  the  feet,  and  idiomatically  in  Greek  into  the  feet. 
In  addition  to  this,  it  will  be  observed,  that,  in  ancient 
times,  not  modern  shoes  were  worn,  but  the  upodema, 
which  was  a  simple  sole  bound  under  the  foot.  As  it 
fit  therefore  into  the  hollow  of  the  foot,  may  not  the 
Greek  idiom  have  had  its  origin  from  that  fact?  Or, 
take  another  supposition  still :  The  verb  in  Greek  is  not 
put,  but  give ;  may  not  the  passage  then  be  best  ex- 
plained, by  referring  it  to  the  class  of  examples  in  which 
eis  signifies  in  usum,  commonly  translated  for  in  Eng- 
lish ?  Give  a  rkig  for  (into  the  use  of)  his  hand,  and 
shoes  for  (into  the  use  of)  his  feet.  Comp.  Matt.  x.  10. 
Luke   ix.   13.     Rom.  xxvi.    26.     J;>hn   x.   40 — "Jesus 


BAPTISM    IS    IMMERSION.  89 

went  away  again  beyond  Jordan  (eis)  unto  the  place 
where  John  at  first  baptized,  and  there  he  abode." 
Says  Dr.  S.,  "certainly  not  in  the  river;  he  did  not 
plunge  himself  into  the  river  and  make  that  his  abode  !" 
Certainly  not.  He  went  into  the  place.  How  would 
you  have  it  ?  He  went  to  Bethabara,  i.  e.  to  the  out- 
skirts, and  there  abode  ?  I  can  give  Dr.  S.  a  more  for- 
cible example  on  his  side  than  any  he  has  quoted.  John 
xx.  1-6 — "Peter  therefore  went  forth  and  that  other 
disciple,  and  came  (eis)  to  the  sepulchre,  and  the  other 
disciple  came  first  [eis)  to  the  sepulchre,  yet  (eiselthen) 
went  he  not  in.  Then  cometh  Simon  Peter  and  [eisel- 
then) went  (eis)  into  the  sepulchre."  Now  this  looks  like 
a  very  strong  case,  and  if  we  did  not  know  from  anti- 
quities how  the  sepulchres  were  constructed,  it  would 
testify  decidedly  in  favor  of  our  opponents  ;  but  the 
structure  of  the  sepulchre  makes  it  a  witness  in  our 
favor.  Pictet,  a  pedobaptist  remarks  : — "  The  form  of 
the  Jewish  sepulchre  was  very  different  from  ours.  The 
more  wealthy  persons  were  accustomed  to  hew  out  a 
cave  in  a  rock,  which  had  first  an  open  space  before  the 
entrance,  and  then  on  both  sides  the  hollow  part  or  cave, 
four  cubits  lower  than  the  open  space,  which  hollow 
part  again  had  its  cavities  or  niches,  some  eight,  some 
thirteen,  in  which  the  bodies  were  deposited.  Christ's 
was  a  new  sepulchre,  in  order  that  no  one  might  have  it 
to  say  that  some  one  else  was  buried  in  his  stead,"  etc. 
(Theology,  p.  260.)  Eis  therefore  carried  that  other 
disciple  into  the  "open  space  before  the  entrance," 
where  he  awaited  the  arrival  of  Peter,  and  eis  carried 


90  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

them  also  into  the  "cave  four  cubits  lower  than  the 
open  space." 

That  eis  sometimes  denotes  to,  or  unto,  we  grant,  but 
we  maintain  that  its  primary  and  usual  signification  is 
into.  "  As  this  word  usually  signifies  motion  to  a  place 
ending  within  the  place,  so  it  is  always  to  be  understood 
in  this  sense,  except  circumstances  forbid  it." 

" The  preposition  ek"  Dr.  S.  says,  " primarily  denotes 
motion  from  a  place."  Any  school-boy,  with  nothing 
but  his  grammar  in  his  hands,  can  successfully  refute 
him.  We  maintain  not  only  that  its  primary  meaning- 
is  out  of,  but  that  it  always  has  that  meaning,  especially 
when  it  denotes  the  motion  of  an  object  from  one  place 
to  another.  Nor  are  the  examples  which  Dr.  S.  quotes 
opposed  to  our  assertion:  Rom.  i.  4 — "And  declared 
to  be  the  Son  of  God,  with  poAver  (eJc)  by  the  resurrection 
from  the  dead."  Literally  out  of  the  resurrection  from 
the  dead ;  i.  e.,  the  proof  is  contained  in  and  proceeds 
out  of  the  resurrection  from  the  dead.  Matt.  xix.  20 — 
"  All  these  things  have  I  kept  (ek)  from  my  youth  up." 
Does  it  mean  that  he  did  not  commence  to  keep  them 
until  after  the  expiration  of  his  youth  ?  Literally  out  of 
my  youth  up.  John  xiii.  4 — "  He  riseth,  {ek)  from  sup- 
per." I  contend  the  original  is  out  of  supper.  "  Out 
of  supper  !"  Yes ;  why  not  out  of,  as  well  as  from  supper  ? 
Literally  he  was  not  on  the  supper,  from  which  he  could 
rise.  Besides,  the  expression,  is  elliptical.  You  yourself 
have  told  us  that  in  ancient  times  they  reclined  on 
couches  at  table.  The  expression  then  with  the  ellipsis 
filled  out  is :  He  riseth  out  of  the  couch  at  the  supper, 


BAPTISM    IS    IMMERSION.  91 

or  be  rises  out  of  the  company,  or  out  of  the  occupation 
at  supper.  I  need  not  formally  prove  that  ek  means 
primarily,  out  of  for  all  the  lexicons  and  grammars 
assert  it. 

But  suppose  we  grant  that  eis  means  to,  and  ek  means 
from,  once  in  a  hundred  times,  what  is  there  about  tin* 
circumstances  here  which  forbids  them  to  be  used  in 
their  ordinary  significations?  Ek  does  not  only  mean 
primarily,  according  to  grammarians,  and  as  we  eontend, 
uniformly,  out  of  but  there  is  no  other  preposition  in 
the  Greek  language  which  has  this  as  its  primary  signi- 
fication. Apo,  as  we  have  shown,  can  bring  an  object 
from  any  position,  whether  within  or  at  the  edge  of  a 
penetrable  body  ;  but  it  has  not,  as  its  primary  signifi- 
cation, out  of  Take  both  of  these  prepositions  away, 
however,  and  there  is  no  other  in  the   language  that 

7  o  O 

can  have  this  signification.  Now  what  have  the  argu- 
ments  of  our  opponents  brought  us  to?  That  there  is 
no  preposition  in  the  Greek  language  that  signifies  in — 
that  no  single  preposition  expresses  out  of  Conse- 
quently the  Greeks  never  conceived  of  such  a  thing  as 
going  into  the  water,  and  if  any  person  or  thing  had  ever 
(eiselthen  eis)  entered  into  it,  there  they  remained  forever, 
for  their  language  does  not  indicate  that  thev  ever  had 
such  a  conception  as  coming  out  of  the  water,  or  out  of 
any  thing  else.  The  common-sense  reader  can  be  at  no 
loss  what  to  think  of  an  argument  that  leads  to  such  a 
conclusion.  If  it  be  granted  that  these  words  have 
various  meanings,  it  will  be  enough  for  them  to  be  told 
what  are  their  usual  significations  ninety-nine  times  in 


92  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MOPE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

a  hundred.  Ninety-nine  times  in  a  hundred — nay,  nine 
hundred  and  ninety-nine  times  in  a  thousand,  baptise 
(if  it  ever  means  any  thing  else,  which  we  deny)  signifies 
to  immerse;  en  in  ;  eis  into;  and  eh  out  of.  It  is  im- 
possible for  the  Greek  words  that  give  an  account  of  the 
baptism  of  the  Eunuch,  to  be  translated  more  literally  and 
accurately  than  they  are  in  the  English  version  of  the 
Bible.  Nay,  I  go  further:  It  is  utterly  impossible  to 
translate  literally  into  Greek,  the  English  sentence,  "  and 
they  went  down  both  into  the  water,  both  Philip  and 
the  Eunuch,  and  he  baptized  him,  and  when  they  were 
come  up  out  of  the  water,"  without  using  the  precise 
words  and  the  precise  structure  of  the  original. 

Another  argument,  which  will  strike  any  man  of  com- 
mon sense,  to  show  that  they  went  into  the  water,  is  the 
repetition  of  the  word  "both ;"  they  went  down  both  into 
the  water,  both  Philip  and  the  Eunuch.  If  eis  means  /o, 
why  the  repetition  ?  By  the  use  of  apo  in  the  baptism 
of  our  Saviour  by  John,  we  have  no  certain  evidence 
that  John  accompanied  his  subjects  into  the  water.  He 
may  have  remained  upon  the  bank,  where  the  water  was 
of  sufficient  depth  for  his  subjects  to  stand  in  it  within 
his  reach  ;  and  as  the  manner  of  the  immersion  has 
nothing  to  do  Avith  its  validity,  he  may  have  immersed 
them  with  their  faces  down,  or  perpendicularly  beneath 
the  wTaves.  Consequently,  it  is  not  absolutely  necessary 
for  the  immersion,  that  the  administrator  should  enter  into 
the  watar ;  and  I  have  known  Baptist  ministers  to  bap- 
tize candidates  into  a  vessel  filled  with  wrater,  while  they 
themselves  stood  without  the  element.     But  the  Holy 


BAPTISM     8    IMMERSION.  93 

Spirit  informs  us  here  that  both  administrator  and  sub- 
ject entered  into  the  element.  Now,  I  ask  again,  if 
Luke  means  to  say  only  that  they  went  down  to  the 
water,  why  does  he  repeat  "  both  Philip  and  the 
Eunuch  ?"  It  is  utterly  impossible  to  torture  any  thing 
out  of  this  account  but  immersion. 

"But,"  you  say,  "  if  the  phrase  '  they  went  down  both 
into  the  water'  signifies  immersion,  then  Philip  was  im- 
mersed as  well  as  the  Eunuch."  To  this  I  answer,  who 
says  this  phrase  signifies  immersion  ?  Baptists  use  this 
as  one  of  the  circumstances  to  show  that  there  was  an 
immersion,  and  not  to  express  the  immersion  itself.  For, 
upon  the  suppositfon  that  the  ordinance  was  adminis- 
tered by  pouring  or  sprinkling,  why  go  into  the  water, 
either  or  both  ?  "  They  went  down  both  into  the  water," 
expresses  the  act  preparatory  to  the  immersiom — "  he 
baptized  him,"  expresses  the  act  of  immersion — "  they 
came  up  out  of  the  water,"  expresses  the  act  subsequent 
to  baptism.  It  takes  a  doctor  of  divinity  who  is  hard 
pressed  for  an  argument  to  invent  such  an  objection  as 
as  this. 

"  But,"  objects  Dr.  Summers,  "It  is  very  improbable 
that  they  found  a  river, -lake,  deep  pond,  cistern  or  tank, 
in  the  way  which  goeth  down  from  Jerusalem  to  Gaza, 
which  is  desert."     p.  101.     To  this  I  reply — 

1.  I  know  not,  nor  do  I  care  to  know,  the  character  of 
the  water.  Whether  it  was  "  a  river,  lake,  deep  pond, 
cistern  or  tank,"  is  not  material.  We  are  told  by  Luke 
that  there  was  enough  for  an  immersion ;  for  they  went 
down  into  it,  Philip  immersed  him,  and  they  came  up 


94  BAPTISM    IX    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

out  of  it.  If  the  circumstances  had  not  been  given,  the 
word  baptizo  itself  would  have  shown  a  sufficient  depth 
of  water. 

2.  Calmet,  a  pedobaptist,  informs  us  that  among  the 
Hebrews  the  word  desert  did  not  signify  an  uninhabited 
place — but  an  uncultivated  place  for  woods  and  pastures, 
like  our  commons — common  lands.  Some  deserts  were 
beautiful  and  had  good  pastures.  Scripture  speaks  of 
the  beauty  of  the  desert.  Psalms  lxv.  11,  12, 13 — "  Thy 
paths  drop  fatness.  They  drop  upon  the  pastures  of  the 
wilderness ;  and  the  little  hills  rejoice  on  every  side. 
The  pastures  are  clothed  with  flocks,"  etc.  But  if  the 
desert,  through  which  Philip  and  the  ^Eunuch  were  trav- 
eling, had  been  as  dry,  generally,  as  the  deserts  of  Arabia, 
the  Scripture  account  shows  that  in  this  place  they  found 
water  enough  for  immersion. 

"  Well,  but,"  says  another,  M  the  account  says  not  one 
word  about  a  change  of  apparel,  neither  here  nor  any 
where  else.  Are  we  to  suppose,  then,  either  that  the 
Eunuch  was  immersed  in  a  state  of  nudity,  or  that  he 
traveled  in  wet  clothes  the  remainder  of  the  day  ?"  The 
same  kind  of  objection  Dr.  Summers  advances  to  John's 
administration  by  immersion.  ■"  For  it  is  alike  absurd 
and  gratuitous,  to  affirm  that  they  all  came  prepared 
with  baptismal  robes,  and  no  one  can  suppose  that  they 
were  immersed  without  a  change  of  apparel ;  and  to  im- 
merse promiscuous  multitudes,  in  a  state  of  nudity  is  a 
supposition  so  extravagant,  as  well  as  indecent,  that  we 
cannot  feel  called  upon  to  refute  it."  p.  83.  We  reply 
to  this  ever-recurring  objection  once  for  all. 


BAPTISM    IS    IMMERSION.  95 

1.  Upon  the  same  principle,  as  there  is  no  mention  of 
the  Eunuchs  clothes,  he  must  have  been  traveling  in  a 
state  of  nudity.  His  chariot  is  mentioned,  his  servant 
is  implied,  we  are  told  he  had  a  copy  of  the  Prophet 
Isaiah,  and  we  know  that  he,  the  Eunuch  himself,  was 
present — but  not  one  hint  is  given  of  his  clothes,  their 
texture,  their  color,  or  their  cut.  Therefore  we  are  to 
infer  that  he  had  no  clothes  at  all,  and  was  traveling 
"in  a  state  of  nudity."  Does  this  surprise  and  shock 
you  ?  do  you  say  it  is  trifling  ?  I  grant  it ;  but  it  is 
precisely  your  way  of  reasoning,  and  I  am  holding  it  up 
before  you  as  a  mirror  in  which  you  can  see  yourself. 
The  mention  of  the  Eunuch  traveling,  necessarily  im- 
plies the  Eunuch  clad,  though  no  mention  be  made  of 
his  clothes  ;  and  the  mention  of  the  Eunuch  immersed, 
implies  the  necessary  facilities  for  "  decency,  comfort  and 
health."  Must  the  Holy  Spirit  condescend  to  inform 
you  minutely  where  the  chariot  stopped,  what  baggage 
the  Ethiopian  had,  and  how  many  changes  of  raiment 
— must  you  be  told  how  he  unpacked  his  luggage, 
whether  he  went  into  the  water  with  his  traveling  dress 
or  substituted  another — how  he  dressed  after  coming 
out  of  the  water,  and  how  he  carried  his  wet  garments, 
whether  tied  up  in  a  bundle,  or  hung  out  on  the  sides 
of  the  chariot  to  dry — must  all  these  details  be  givea  to 
you,  before  you  can  believe  God's  plain  and  unequivocal 
statement  ?  It  is  astonishing  that  doctors  of  divinity 
should  be  guilty  of  such  trifling  ;  and  it  is  disgusting  to 
have  to  reply  to  such  things. 

2.  The  very  same  objection  can  be  urged,  with  the 


96  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

same  force  against  the  reports  of  immersions  by  the 
Baptists  of  the  present  clay.     Had  Dr.  S.  been  present 
at  the  last  meeting  of  the  Georgia  Baptist  Association, 
and  heard  the  letter  from  Antioch  read,  in  which  it  was 
stated  that  in  the  month  of  August  fifty  persons  were 
baptized  at  that  church — if  he  had   been  informed  that 
it  was  a  church  in  the  country,  and   these  persons  lived 
a  distance  of  many  miles  from  the  place  of  their  baptism, 
he   might  have   proved  as  conclusively  that  pouring  or 
sprinkling  constituted   the  ordinance.     To  do  this,  he 
might  have  adopted  the  language  of  Dr.  Miller,  to  which 
his  own  bears  a  marked  resemblance.  "  Can  we  imagine 
that  so  great"  a  number  "  could  have  been  provided  on 
the   spot  with  convenient  changes  of  raiment  to  admit 
of  their  being  plunged  consistently  with  their  health  \ 
or  can  we  suppose  that  the  greater  part  of  their  number 
would   remain  for   hours   on  the  ground   in  their  wet 
clothes  ?     And  if  not,   would  decency  have  permitted 
multitudes  of  both  sexes  to  appear,  and  to  undergo  the 
administration  of  the  ordinance  in  that  mode,  in  a  state 
of  entire  nakedness  ?     Surely  Ave  need  not  wait  for  an 
answer  ;  neither  supposition  is  admissible."     (Miller  on 
Bap.,  p.  92.)     And  thus  Dr.   S.   could  prove  that  the 
pastor  of  Antioch  church — whatever  \iis  protestations  to 
the    contrary — baptized   fifty  persons    last    August   bv 
sprinkling  or  pouring !    And  the  argument  might  appear 
very  conclusive  to  a  man  of  Dr.  Summers's  learning ; 
but  it  would   seem  very  ridiculous  to  any  man  of  plain 
common  sense.     In  no  accounts  of  immersions   at  the 
present  day,  are  we  enlightened  with  the  details  of  dress- 


INSTANCES    OP   BAPTISM.  07 

ing  before  and  after  the  ordinance,  nor  was  it  necessary 
in  ancient  days. 

Thus  we  have  considered  the  only  two  cases  of  bap- 
tism recorded  in  the  Scriptures,  in  which  the  details  are 
given — have  answered  all  the  arguments  of  our  oppo- 
nents drawn  from  the  Greek,  and  from  their  imagina- 
tions, and  have  shown  that  they  exhibit  immersion  and 
nothing  else. 


CHAPTER  HI.  • 

THE    INSTANCES    OF    BAPTISM    WHERE    DETAILS   ARE    NOT 
GIVEN,  CONSISTENT  WITH  THE  MEANING  OF  THE  WORD. 

Some  of  our  opponents  maintain  that  even  though  it 
be  proved  that  Christ  and  the  Ethiopian  Eunuch  were 
immersed,  the  argument  would  not  be  decisive  as  against 
them.;  since  they  themselves  also  practice  immersion  at 
times,  and  grant  that  it  is  a  valid  baptism.  A  small  but 
increasing  class,  however,  take  the  ground  unequivocally 
that  there  is  no  case  of  immersion  in  the  Scriptures ; 
and  refuse  to  administer  that  "  mode  of  the  ordinance  " 
in  any  case.  Dr.  S.,  if  he  were  consistent,  would  openly 
take  his  position  among  these  ;  for  how  can  he  adminis- 
7 


98  BAPTISM   IN   ITS   MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

ter,  or  even  tolerate  immersion,  when  it  is  indecent,  is 
not  significant  of  that  of  which  the  ordinance  is  an  em- 
blem, and  was  not  in  existence  in  apostolic  times,  as 
he  argues?     True,  he  does  all  he  can  by  argument  to 
persuade  the  "weak  consciences"  among  his  subjects  not 
to  '-  choose  "  to  drag  him  down  into  the  water ;  and  when 
he  reddens  in  the  discussion,  and  becomes  irritated  by 
the  plea  that  immersion  "  is  the  safer  mode  as  no  one 
doubts  its  validity,  while  many  do  doubt  the  validity  of 
affusion,"  (p.  119,)  he  comes  in  one  of  asserting  that  im- 
mersion is  no  baptism  at  all.     "  We  are  ready  to  recog- 
nize their  mode  of  performing  baptism  as  valid,  though 
a  departure  from  the  primitive  mode,  and  a  clumsy  way 
of  performing  an  otherwise  simple,  beautiful  and  impres- 
sive ordinance.     We  may,  indeed,  in  special  cases,  and 
in  condescension  to  weak   consciences,  administer  the 
ordinance  by  plunging,  though,  in  such  cases,  some  think 
affusion  ought  not  to  be  omitted,  else  there  might  be 
need  for  Hezekiah's  prayer :    '  The  good  Lord  pardon 
every  one  that  prepareth  his  heart  to  seek  God,  the  Lord 
God  of  his  fathers,  though  he  be  not  cleansed  according 
to  the  purification  of  the  sanctuary.'"  p.  123.     That  is, 
he  is  so  accommodating,  in  his  "  condescension  to  weak 
consciences,"  that  he  consents  not  only  to  overcome  his 
own  repugnance,  but  to  depart  from  the  "  beautiful,  im- 
pressive, and  primative  mode  of  God's  ordinance,"  and 
to  substitute  a  "clumsy"  rite  of  doubtful  propriety,  so 
doubtful  as  to  make  it  necessary  to  "baptize  by  affusion," 
also,  and  to  pray  God's  forgiveness  for  what  he  is  doing  ! 
To  say  nothing  of  the  fraud  practiced  upon  the  "  weak 


INSTANCES    OF    BAPTISM.  09 

conscience,"  in  "affusing"  him  when  he  "chooses"  to 
be  immersed — not  to  dwell  upon  the  fact  that,  if  immer- 
sion be  baptism  at  all,  the  weak  brother  is  doubly  bap- 
tized— we  must  say  Dr.  Summers  makes  too  great  a 
sacrifice  to  "  accommodate  a  weak  conscience."  Better 
let  it  go  than  retain  it  at  such  an  expense. 

Again,  speaking  of  some  in  his  own  ranks :  "  There 
are  many  who  cannot  conscientiously  immerse  a  candi- 
date for  baptism,  and  exceedingly  few  among  them  who 
do  not  consider  that  baptism  by  immersion  is  valid  in 
spite  of  the  plunging,  and  not  in  consequence  of  it.  They 
consider  it  a  mangling  of  the  Saviour's  ordinance,  and 
they  never  witness  an  immersion  without  feelings  of 
revulsion  and  sorrow.  All  such  persons  consider  it  too 
great  a  stretch  of  charity  to  abandon  what  they  believe 
to  be  the  more  excellent  way  at  the  demand  of  an  insa- 
tiate bigotry,  which  grows  by  that  on  which  it  feeds. 
To  yield  to  such  claims  they  consider  nothing  better 
than  a  mawkish  and  factitious  liberality,  as  to  assert 
them  is  nothing  better  than  arrogance  or  ignorance,  or 
both  united."  p.  120.  Dr.  Summers  waxes  warm  you 
perceive,  and  writes  very  much  as  if  he  is  expressing  his 
own  sentiments.  Press  him  a  little  further  and  excite 
him  a  little  more,  and  it  would  not  be  surprising  if  he 
should  doggedly  determine,  and  so  announce,  that  he 
would  not  suffer  himself  to  be  dragged  into  the  water, 
though  all  the  "  unstable  souls"  and  "  weak  consciences," 
that  prefer  his  communion,  were  exerting  a  combined 
influence  in  that  direction. 

The  courteous  terms  in  this  extract,  and  in  other  pas- 


100  BAPTISM   IN    ITS   MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

sages  which  I  have  not  quoted,  bring  to  my  remem- 
brance so  forcibly  a  passage  in  his  "Dedication  to  Bishop 
Andrew,"  that  I  cannot  forbear  to  pause  long  enough  to 
note  it.  "  Many  of  the  works'  on  baptism  which  teem 
from  the  press  are  utterly  worthless.  .  .  .  The  style  and 
spirit,  too,  in  not  a  few  instances,  are  highly  objection- 
able— not  the  slightest  regard  being  given  to  the  apos- 
tolic rule  of  speaking  the  truth  in  love.  The  spread  of 
such  works  is  of  most  pernicious  tendency ;  and  if  the 
issue  of  the  present  volume  will,  to  any  extent,  restrain 
their  circulation,  the  author  has  not  labored  in  vain." 
p.  5.  This  reminds  us  of  the  manner  in  which  a  distin- 
guished Judge  of  this  State,  now  dead,  routed  the  gam- 
blers that  infested  his  courts.  In  his  address  to  the 
grand  jury  at  the  opening  of  the  court,  he  enlarged  upon 
the  unlawfulness  of  games  of  chance,  and  the  disastrous 
influence,  as  well  upon  the  morals  of  society,  as  upon 
the  interests  for  time  and  eternity  of  those  engaging  in 
them ;  pressed  upon  the  jury  the  obligations  of  their 
oaths  to  ferret  out  and  to  bring  to  trial,  all  infractors  of 
the  law ;  and  more  than  intimated  that  such  culprits, 
should  they  fall  into  his  hands,  would  receive  an  exem- 
plary punishment.  At  night,  however,  when  all  honest 
citizens  were  sleeping  soundly,  under  the  grateful  con- 
viction that  the  public  morals  were  safe,  while  under  the 
guardianship  of  such  judicial  purity  and  faithfulness,  his 
Honor  was  in  a  closely  curtained  room,  playing  at  Faro, 
and  so  successfully  that  in  a  short  time  he  broke  the 
bank.  Like  a  faithful  judge  he  did  not  suffer  the  occa- 
sion to  pass  without  impressing  upon  them  a  suitable 


INSTANCES    OF   BAPTISM.  101 

moral.  After  cursing  them,  very  profanely  to  make 
them  feel  more  sensibly  his  superiority  to  them,  he 
observed  that,  all  day  long,  he  had  endeavored  to  route 
them  by  the  slow  forms  of  law ;  but,  failing  in  that,  and 
seeing  that  they  were  defying  his  authority,  he  had  taken 
a  more  successful  and  summary  way  to  break  them  up 
utterly,  and  he  hoped  their  discomfiture  would  be  a 
warning  to  them  for  the  future.  Doubtless,  all  those 
writers  whom  Dr.  Summers  rebukes  will,  hereafter,  ac- 
knowledge him  as  a  master,  and.  consent  to  be  silent 
whenever  he  speaks — in  utter  despair  at  the  superior 
skill  with  which  he  wields  their  own  weapons  !  And 
the  Christian  world  need  not  despair,  after  this,  that  the 
baptismal  controversy  will  be  waged  with  a  proper  spirit ! 
But  to  return. 

It  is  much  to  be  regretted  that  all  of  our  opponents  do 
not  follow  out  their  arguments  to  their  legitimate  result, 
and  maintain  that  immersion  is  no  baptism  at  all.  In 
that  case,  the  question  would  be  narrowed  down  to  a 
single  point,  and  our  opponents'  practice  and  their  argu- 
ments would  harmonize.  As  it  is  now,  let  us  press  them 
hard  in  the  argument,  and  they  immediately  run  for 
shelter  into  the  water,  thinking  that  we  could  not  find 
it  in  our  heart  to  attack  them  there.  Do  we  prove  that 
the  word  baptizo  means  to  immerse  ;  and  do  we  show 
irrefragably  that  Christ  and  the  Ethiopian  Eunuch  were 
immersed,  they  answer :  "Well,  as  far  as  it  goes,  that 
sustains  our  practice.  We  grant  that  they  may  have 
been  immersed,  and  that  the  word  baptizo  has,  as  one  of 
its  meanings,  to  immerse ;  but,  then,  it  has  other  mean- 


102  BAPTISM    D    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

ings  also,  and  the  instances  of  baptism  in  the  Scriptures 
where  the  circumstances  are  not  given,  the  import  of  the 
ordinance,  and  the  allusions  to  it.  show  that  other  forms, 
besides  immersion,  were  in  use.  and,  therefore,  valid.'' 
In  this  way,  by  their  three  baptisms,  they  not  only  satisfy 
themselves,  and  retain  "weak  consciences"  in  their 
ranks,  but  hope,  al.-o,  to  foil  the  Baptists  in  the  argu- 
ment. Drive  them  from  the  passages  that  are  clear  and 
unequivocal,  and  they  fly  immediately  for  shelter  behind 
those  that  are  not  so  definite.  We  leave  it  to  our  readers 
to  decide  if  the  word  and  all  the  instances  where  the 
circumstances  are  given,  do  not  decide  against  them; 
and  we  shall  leave  it  to  the  same  tribunal  to  decide  if 
other  passages  afford  them  any  better  protection. 

Section  I. — Enon  near  to  Salim.  The  three  thou- 
sand on  the  day  of  Pentecost. 

It  may  not  be  inappropriate,  under  this  head,  to  quote 
an  example  under  John's  administration  :  u  And  John 
also  was  baptizing  in  Enon,  near  to  Salim,  because  there 
was  much  water  there:  and  they  came  and  were  bap- 
tized." John  iii.  23.  What  was  John  doing  at  Enon  ? 
Baptizing.  "Why  did  he  select  Enon  in  preference  to 
other  places  ?  Because  there  was  much  water  there. 
Surely,  much  water  is  not  needed  for  pouring  and  sprink- 
ling-. But  then  you  say  the  Greek  phrase  udata  polla, 
rendered  much  water,  means  many  strea?ns  or  rivulets. 
Very  well :  suppose  we  grant  it  for  the  sake  of  argu- 
ment, what  then  '  What  difference  does  it  make  ?  He 
was  baptizing  at  Enon,  because  there  were  many  streams 


INSTANCES    OF    BAPTISM.  103 

or  rivulets  there.  Are  streams  and  rivulets  necessary  to 
furnish  the  requisite  water  for  pouring  or  sprinkling  ? 
For  the  purposes  of  immersion,  one  rivulet  would  have 
answered  John  as  well  as  the  Atlantic  ocean  ;  and  here 
he  had  many  of  them.  Your  explanation  that  John 
selected  a  place  of  many  streams  or  rivulets  to  furnish 
water  to  the  beasts  that  the  people  rode,  is  simply  ludic- 
rous. The  record  does  not  state  that  a  single  beast  was 
present,  and  if  there  had  been  a  thousand  there,  much 
water  would  have  slaked  their  thirst  as  easily  as  many 
streams  or  rivulets.  It  does  not  state  that  John  was 
camping  at  Enon,  or  even  preaching  at  Enon,  because 
there  was  a  supply  of  water ;  but  baptizing  at  Enon. 
Christ  collected  as  great  a  crowd  as  John,  but  we  are 
nowhere  told  that  he  was  teaching  or  performing  mira- 
cles at  a  certain  place  because  there  was  much  water  or 
even  many  streams  there.  Was  John  more  compassion- 
ate to  brutes  than  our  compassionate  Saviour  ?  Let  it 
be  granted  then,  that  the  Greek  phrase  should  be  ren- 
dered many  streams  or  rivulets,  and  let  the  Evangelist 
inform  us  that  such  a  locality  was  chosen  for  the  pur- 
poses of  baptism,  and  our  most  natural  inference  would 
be  that  John,  baptizing,  as  you  say,  such  "vast  multi- 
tudes," desired  a  sufficient  .supply  of  fresh  and  clear 
water. 

But  the  Greek  phrase  {udata  polio)  is  properly  trans- 
lated much  water,  as  other  examples  in  the  Scriptures 
show:  Rev.  i.  15. — "And  his  voice  as  the  sound  of 
(udata  pjolla)  many  waters.''  xiv.  2.  "  And  I  heard  a 
voice  from  heaven  as  the  voice  of  (udata '  polld)  many 


104  BAPTISM   IN   ITS   MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

waters,  and  as  the  voice  of  a  great  thunder."  xix.  6. 
"  And  I  heard  as  it  were  the  voice  of  a  great  multitude, 
and  as  the  voice  of  {udata  polla)  many  waters."  See 
also  Rev.  xvii.  1,  15  ;  and  in  the  Septuagint,  2  Sam. 
xxii.  17;  Ps.  xviii.  16;  xxix.  3;  xxxii.  6;  lxxvi.  19; 
xciii.  4;  cvii.  23;  cxliv.  *7;  Jer.  li.  13.  "Thy  way  is  in 
the  sea,  and  thy  path  in  (udata  polla)  the  great  ivaters." 
"They  that  go  down  to  the  sea  in  ships  that  do  business 
in  {udata  polla)  great  waters."  John  was  immersing  at 
Enon  near  to  Salim,  because  there  was  much  water  there. 

The  first  case  on  record,  after  the  resurrection  of 
Christ  was  the  baptism  of  the  three  thousand  on  the  day 
of  Pentecost — Acts  ii.  Many  objections  are  brought 
forward  by  our  opponents,  and  urged  with  much  confi- 
dence, to  show  that  "  their  baptism  could  not  have  been 
by  immersion."  All  of  which  can  be  shown  to  have  no 
weight.  First.  It  is  observed  "there  was  not  time 
enough  for  the  immersion  of  so  large  a  number."  "  It 
was  impossible  for  the  twelve  apostles  to  immerse  such 
a  multitude  in  six  or  eight  hours."  Summers,  p.  86. 
To  this  I  answer : 

1.  The  account  does  not  state  that  that  number  was 
baptized  on  that  day  ;  all  that  is  asserted  is  that  "  the 
same  day  there  were  added  unto  them  about  three  thou- 
sand souls."  v.  41.  "Them"  may  refer  to  those  who 
gladly  received  the  word  and  were  baptized,  or  it  may 
refer  to  the  company  of  disciples.  These  three  thousand 
may  have  been  a  part  of  those  "vast  multitudes"  bap- 
tized by  John,  who,  like  Apollos,  availed  themselves  of 
the  first  suitable  opportunity,  on  this  revival  occasion, 


INSTANCES    OF    BAPTISM.  105 

to  unite   themselves,  ostensibly,  with  the  followers  of 
Christ, 

2.  If  it  be  true  that  all  were  baptized  on  that  day,  the 
difficulty,  as  to  time,  is  no  greater  with  us  than  with 
you.     It  takes  but  little,  if  any  more  time,  to  immerse  a 
subject  than  to  sprinkle  or  pour  water  upon  him  "  de- 
cently" and  gracefully.     The  time  is  consumed  chiefly, 
not  in  the  act  of  immersion,  but  in  uttering  the  formula, 
"  I  baptize  thee  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the 
Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost."     And  I  will  undertake  to 
immerse  a  candidate  in  as  short  a  time  as  Dr.  Summers 
can  pour  water  upon  him  decently  and  genteelly.     He 
was  aware  of  this  difficulty  when  he  was  urging  that  it 
was  a  physical  impossibility  for  John  to  immerse  the 
"vast  multitudes"  that  came  to  his  baptism,  and  made 
the  Baptist  fall  upon  the  rare  expedient  of  baptizing 
them  in  the  gross  !     "  He  could  place  the  subjects  by  the 
margin  of  the  stream,  and  with  his  hand,  or  with  a  small 
vessel  or  shell,  pour  it  upon  them  ;  or,  agreeably  to  the 
Mosaic  ceremonial,  sprinkle  it  upon  them  with  a  bunch 
of  hyssop."  p.  109.     To  answer  the  same  objection  as  to 
time,  I  suppose  he  would  make  the  apostles  adopt  the 
same  expedient.     Let  us  see  how  it  would  work.     The 
means  used  were  the  hand,  a  small  vessel,  a  shell  or  an 
hyssop-sprinkler.     The  use  of  the  hand  will  not  do :  for, 
as  the  hollow  of  it  will  hold  not  more  than  would  suf- 
fice for  the  head  of  one,  the  administrator  would  have 
to  walk  from  the  candidate  to  the  water,  or  stoop  down 
to  it  and  dip  up  "  the  element "  every  time  he  applied  it 
to  the  subject,  unless  it  is  meant  that  John  stood  in  the 


106  BAPTISM   IN    ITS   MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

water  and,  with  Lis  hand,  scattered  it  upon  the  long  and 
densely  packed  ranks.  This  may  have  been  very  expe- 
ditious and  decent  ;  hut  if  Doctor  Summers  were  to  ad- 
minister the  ordinance  in  the  same  way,  the  boys  in 
Charleston  would  very  likely  consider  that  he  had 
descended  to  a  level  with  themselves. 

But  suppose  a  shell,  or  even  a  pitcher,  were  used; 
was  the  formula  repeated  three  thousand  times  or  was 
it  uttered  once  for  all  ?  and  then,  holding  the  pitcher 
over  the  heads  of  the  people  in  line,  did  the  administra- 
tor walk  rapidly  in  front  of  them,  and  pour  the  water  out 
in  a  constant  stream  ?  Let  it  be  granted  that  the  for- 
mula may  not  be  repeated  in  immersion,  and  that,  for 
the  sake  of  decency,  the  stream  from  your  pitcher  is  to 
be  arrested,  and  the  water  not  poured  between  the  peo- 
ple as  well  as  upon  their  heads,  and  we  will  undertake 
to  immerse  as  many  as  you  can  pour  upon. 

But  the  hyssop-sprinkler  puts  to  flight  our  arguments 
and  our  gravity  at  the  same  time.  The  formula  out  of 
the  question — one  swing  of  it  and  hundreds  are  sprinkled ! 
It  labors,  however,  under  the  disadvantages  that  the  ad- 
ministrator could  not,  with  certainty,  know  that  the  scat- 
tered drops  hit  all ;  and  when,  on  a  repetition  of  the 
swing,  some  drops  may  have  fallen  on  those  already 
baptized,  it  subjected  the  administrator  to  the  crime  of 
being  an  "  anabaptist !"  Verily,  Doctor  Summers,  your 
expedient,  gravely  as  it  is  advanced,  has  no  other  effect 
upon  your  readers  than  to  excite  in  their  minds-  sensations 
of  the  ludicrous ! 

3.  The  seventy  disciples  commissioned  by  Christ  to 


INSTANCES    OF    BAPTISM.  107 

preach,  were  authorized  administrators,  and  were  doubt- 
less present  on  the  occasion  ;  for  we  read,  v.  1 — "  They 
were  all,  with  one  accord  in  one  place."  There  being, 
then,  eighty-two  administrators,  each  would  not  have 
quite  thirty-eight  to  baptize.  Now  as,  when  the  candi- 
dates enter  into  a  river,  or  pool  in  companies,  two,  at 
least,  can  be  baptized  in  a  minute,  the  perilous  work  can 
be  accomplished  in  less  than  half  an  hour !  But  Dr.  S. 
says  :  "  It  is  perfectly  gratuitous  to  associate  the  seventy 
disciples  with  the  apostles  in  this  work,"  p.  86.  I  will 
not  stop  to  argue  this  with  him,  further  than  to  cite  him 
to  the  following  passages,  which  show  that  others  than 
the  twelve  apostles  were  authorized  to  baptize  : — Acts 
viii.  15  ;  ix.  18  ;  xviii.  2,  &c. ;  x.  5-23  ;  xi.  1.  But  let 
him,  if  he  pleases,  refuse  the  aid  of  the  seventy  in  the 
hyssop-sprinkling  operation,  and  let  it  be  granted  that 
the  work  was  performed  by  the  twelve  alone  ;  in  that 
case,  it  could  have  been  accomplished  in  less  than  three 
hours. 

The  day  of  Pentecost  was  not  the  only  one  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  rite  on  which  it  was  administered  to  three 
thousand  persons.  "On  the  16th  of  April,  A.  D.  404, 
Chrysostom,  Bishop  of  Constantinople,  and  his  presby- 
ters, immersed  three  thousand  persons,  though  twice  in- 
terrupted by  attacks  from  furious  soldiers."  Chrysost. 
Ep.  ad  Innoc,  v.  3,  518 — (as  quoted  by  Dr.  Sears  and 
others.)  Again,  "in  496,  Remigius,  Bishop  of  Rheims, 
immersed  Clovis  and  three  thousand  of  his  subjects.  Of 
course  he  was  aided  by  his  presbyters."  (Schrockh's 
Ch.  His.  vol.  xvi.,  p.  234.) 


108  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

The  difficulty,  as  to  time,  being  obviated,  next  it  is 
urged  that  there  was  not  water  enough  in  Jerusalem  to 
immerse  such  a  multitude  (Summers,  p.  85.)  In  vain 
we  tell  them  that  the  word  baptizo,  which  the  Holy 
Spirit  uses,  necessarily  implies  water  enough.  They 
reply  that  that  is  the  Very  thing  in  dispute.  Baptizo, 
they  say,  sometimes  means  to  immerse  ;  but  it  also  sig- 
nifies to  sprinkle,  to  pour,  to  purify,  and  to  apply  water 
in  any  mode,  and  in  any  quantity.  "  That  baptism  may 
have  been  administered,  by  immersion,"  at  Jordan,  "  we 
may  grant,  but  that  it  was  administered  at  other  ■places, 
in  other  ways,  we  maintain ;"  and  the  deficiency  of 
water  for  the  immersion  of  the  three  thousand,  is  urged 
to  show  that  this  was  one  of  the  cases  in  which  the  or- 
dinance was  administered  by  sprinkling  or  by  affusion. 
Very  well.  If  we  had  honest  scholars  only  to  deal  with 
— men  who  make  no  pretensions  to  a  reverence  of  the 
Scriptures — and  we  should  fail  to  show  a  sufficiency  of 
water,  they  would  either  grant  that  it  is  unreasonable  to 
make  such  a  requirement  of  us,  after  the  lapse  of  eighteen 
centuries,  and  admit  that  facilities  for  immersion  may 
have  existed  then  without  leaving  any  traces  behind 
them,  or  they  would  boldly  deny  the  inspiration  of  the 
Scriptures.  It  would  never  enter  their  minds  to  give  the 
word  baptizo  a  signification  which  they  had  never  found 
attached  to  it  within  the  whole  range  of  their  reading. 
If  I  were  to  say  that  Dr.  S.  immersed  fifty  persons  in 
Charleston,  on  a  certain  occasion,  when  the  fact  was  that 
he  had  poured  a  little  water  upon  them,  all  would  accuse 
me,  with  reason,  of  telling  a  falsehood,  even  though  I 


INSTANCES    OF    BAPTISM.  109 

should  defend  myself  by  saying  that  I  used  the  word 
immerse,  not  in  its  ordinary,  but  in  a  "  sacred"  sense, 
and  that  I  really  meant  that  Dr.  S.  poured  water  upon 
them.  The  word  baptizo  having  been  proved  to  signify 
to  immerse,  surely  it  would  seem  that  the  controversy 
should  be  at  an  end.  xVnd  when  the  Holy  Spirit  in- 
forms us  that  three  thousand  were  immersed  in  Jerusa- 
lem in  one  day,  we  should  either  admit  it  or  deny  the 
truth  of  Revelation. 

But  though  it  is  unreasonable  that  we  should  be  re- 
quired to  meet  these  demands  for  proof,  yet  it  has  been 
so  ordered  that  we  have  the  most  ample  proof,  both 
from  the  Scriptures  and  from  the  researches  of  "  anti- 
immersionists"  themselves.  The  statements  of  the  Scrip- 
tures and  of  travelers,  show  that  no  city  in  ancient  or 
modern  times  was  better  watered  than  was  Jerusalem. 
2  Kings,  xviii.  17 — "And  they  went  and  came  to  Jeru- 
salem, and  when  they  were  come  up,  they  stood  by  the 
conduit  of  the  upper  pool,  which  is  in  the  highway  of 
the  fuller's  field."  xx.  20 — "And  the  rest  of  the  acts, 
of  Hezekiah,  and  all  his  might,  and  how  he  made  a  pool 
and  a  conduit,  and  brought  water  into  the  city,  are  they 
not  written,"  &c.  2  Chron.  xxxii.  34,  (when  Sennach- 
erib besieged  Jerusalem,) — "  So  there  was  gathered 
much  people  together,  who  stopped  all  the  fountains, 
and  the  brook  that  ran  through  the  midst  of  the  land, 
saying,  Why  should  the  kings  of  Assyria  come  and  find 
much  waters  xxxii.  30 — "This  same  Hezekiah  stopped 
the  upper  water-course  of  Gihon,  and  brought  it  straight 
down  to  the  west  side  of  the  city  of  David."     Neh.  ii. 


110  BAPTISM   IN    ITS   MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

14 — "Then  I  went  on  to  the  gate  of  the  fountain,  and 
to  the  king's  pool."     iii.  15,  16 — "But  the  gate  of  the 

fountain  repaired  Shallum and  the 

wall  of  the  pool  of  Siloah After  him 

Nehemiah to  the  pool  that  was  made." 

Isaiah  xxii.  9 — "  Ye  have  seen  also  the  breaches  of  the 
city  of  David,  that  they  are  many,  and  ye  gathered 
together  the  waters  of  the  lower  pool?  John  v.  2 — 
"  Now  there  is  at  Jerusalem,  by  the  sheep  market,  a 
pool,  which  is  called,  in  the  Hebrew  tongue,  Bethesda, 
'having  five  porches."  ix.  V — "  And  he  said  to  him,  Go 
wash  in  the  pool  of  Siloam."  Travelers  testify  definitely 
and  conclusively  to  the  abundant  supply  of  water  in 
Jerusalem.  Chataubriand  says  : — "  Having  ascended 
Mount  Zion,  we  came  to  the  fountain  and  pool  of  Siloe. 
The  spring  issues  from  a  rock,  and  runs  in  a  silent  stream. 
The  pool,  or  rather  two  pools  of  the  same  name,  are 
quite  close  to  the  spring.  Here,  also,  you  find  a  village 
called  Siloam.  At  the  foot  of  this  village  is  another 
fountain,  denominated,  in  Scripture,  Rogel.  Opposite 
to  this  fountain  is  a  third,  called  the  Virgin's  Fountain. 
This  mingles  its  stream  with  that  of  the  fountain  of 
Siloe.  .  .  .  The  pool  of  Bethesda  is  a  reservoir,  150  feet 
long,  and  40  feet  wide.  Maundrell  gives  the  dimensions, 
120  paces  long,  40  broad  and  8  deep." 

But  the  testimony  of  the  distinguished  pedobaptist, 
Dr.  Robinson,  is  so  conclusive  as  to  bar  out  forever  all 
objection,  on  the  ground  of  the  scarcity  of  water  in  Je- 
rusalem. Under  the  head  of  "  Cisterns,"  he  says  : — 
"  The  main  dependence  of  Jerusalem  for  water,  at  the 


INSTANCES    OF    BAPTISM.  Ill 

present  day,  is  on  its  cisterns,  and  this  has,  probably, 
always  been  the  case."  He  speaks  of  "  immense  cis- 
terns, now  and  anciently  existing  within  the  area  of  the 
temple,  supplied,  partly,  from  rain-water,  and  partly  by 
the  aqueduct.  These,  of  themselves,  in  case  of  a  siege, 
would  furnish  a  tolerable  supply.  But,  in  addition  to 
these,  almost  every  private  house  in  Jerusalem  of  any 
size  is  understood  to  have  at  least  one  or  more  cisterns 
excavated  in  the  soft  limestone  rock  on  which  the  city 
is  built.  The  house  of  Mr.  Laneau,  in  which  we  resided, 
had  no  less  than  four  cisterns  ;  and  as  these  are  but  a 
specimen  of  the  manner  in  which  all  the  better  class  of 
houses  are  supplied,  I  subjoin  here  the  dimensions  :  1st. 
Length,  15  feet;  breadth,  8  feet;  depth,  12  feet.  2d. 
Length,  8  feet ;  breadth,  4  feet ;  depth,  15  feet.  3d. 
Length,  10  feet ;  breadth,  10  feet ;  depth,  15  feet.  4th. 
Length,  30  feet;  breadth,  30  feet;  depth  20  feet.  This 
last  is  enormously  large,  and  the  numbers  given  are  the 
least  estimate,"  (Bib.  Researches  in  Pal.,  p.  480.)  Un- 
der the  head  of  "  Reservoirs,"  he  says  : — "These  reser- 
voirs we  have  learned  to  consider  as  one  of  the  least 
doubtful  vestiges  of  antiquity  in  Palestine."  "  With 
such  reservoirs  Jerusalem  was  abundantly  supplied,  to 
say  nothing  of  the  immense  Pools  of  Solomon,  beyond 
Bethlehem,  which,  no  doubt,  were  constructed  for  the 
benefit  of  the  Holy  City,"  p.  483.  "  Lying  outside  of 
the  walls,  on  the  west  side  of  the  city,"  "  are  two  very 
large  reservoirs,"  which,  he  supposes,  were  the  Upper 
and  Lower  Pools  of  Isaiah.  (Isa.  vii.  3  ;  xxxvi,  2  ;  2 
Kings  xviii.  17  ;  Isa.  xxii.  9.)     Of  the   Upper  Pool,  he 


112  BAPTISM   IN   ITS   MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

gives  the  following  dimensions:  "  Length,  316  English 
feet ;  breadth,  at  the  west  end,  200  feet ;  at  the  east  end, 
218  feet;  depth  at  each  end,  18  feet,"  (p.  484.)  And 
of  the  Lower  Pool,  the  following  : — "  Length,  along  the 
middle,  592  English  feet ;  breadth,  at  the  north  end, 
245  feet;  at  the  south  end,  275  feet;  depth,  at  north 
end,  including  about  9  feet  of  rubbish,  35  feet ;  at  south 
end,  including  about  3  feet  of  rubbish,  42  feet,"  p.  486, 
Besides  these,  he  mentions,  as  being  "  without  the  walls,' 
the  Pool  of  Siloam,  and  two  other  pools  or  "  cistern-like" 
tanks.  "  Within  the  walls  of  the  city  are  three  reservoirs, 
two  of  which  are  of  large  size,"  (p.  486.)  "  The  Pool 
of  Bathsheba,"  "  the  Pool  of  Hezekiah,"  and  "  the  Pool 
of  Bethesda."  Of  the  Pool  of  Hezekiah,  he  says  :  "  Its 
breadth,  at  the  north  end,  is  144  feet ;  its  length,  on  the 
east  side,  about  240  feet,  though  the  adjacent  houses 
here  prevented  any  very  exact  measurement.  The  depth  is 
not  great,"  (p.  487.)  "  The  Pool  of  Bethesda,"  he  says, 
"measures  360  English  feet  in  length,  130  feet  in 
breadth,  and  75  feet  in  depth,  to  the  bottom,  besides  the 
rubbish  which  has  been  accumulating  in  it  for  ages,"  (p. 
434.)  Besides,  he  speaks  of  an  aqueduct  and  numer- 
ous fountains.  (See  Robinson's  Researches,  pp.  479- 
516.) 

Now,  I  think,  by  the  aid  of  the  Scriptures,  and  the 
publications  of  travelers,  we  have  found  water  enough 
in  Jerusalem  to  immerse  the  three  thousand,  either 
within  or  without  the  walls.  The  Pool  of  Bethesda,  360 
feet  long,  and  130  feet  wide,  gives  us  a  circumference  of 
490  feet,  in  which  82  administrators  could  stand,  more 


INSTANCES    OF    BAPTISM  113 

than  five  feet  apart,  and  immerse  three  thousand  in 
twenty  minutes.  "  But,"  you  say,  "  that  was  impossible, 
for  the  water  was  too  deep."  Ah  !  you  have  shifted 
your  position,  have  you  ?  Now  you  have  too  much 
water  !  Well,  then,  we  will  take  the  Pool  of  Hezekiah, 
the  depth  of  which  was  rfot  great.  Here,  with  a  cir- 
cumference of  384  feet,  our  82  administrators  could 
stand  more  than  four  feet  apart,  or  the  twelve  apostles 
at  greater  intervals,  and  go  through  the  work  in  the 
time  stated  above.  But  does  Dr.  S.  say,  so  many  bap- 
tizing together,  in  so  small  a  space  would  produce  too 
much  confusion  ?  I  answer,  not  half  so  much  confusion 
as  is  found  in  every  revival  among  certain  denominations 
in  the  present  day,  when  some  are  exhorting,  some  sing- 
ing, some  praying,  some  weeping,  and  some  shouting. 
Do  other  pedobaptists,  not  of  Dr.  S.'s  persuasion,  still 
persist  that  there  would  have  been  too  much  confusion 
for  the  ordinance  to  be  administered  decently  and  in 
order  ?  Then  we  will  spare  their  weak  nerves,  and  gratify 
their  "  cultivated  tastes,"  by  distributing  the  administra- 
tors, and  a  suitable  number  of  subjects  to  each,  among 
various  private  houses,  nearly  all  of  which,  Dr.  Robinson 
informs  us,  were  provided  with  one  or  more  cisterns  of 
sufficient  capacity,  not  only  to  baptize  them,  but  to  fur- 
nish the  facilities  for  the  immersion  of  the  pharisee  on 
his  return  from  market,  and  all  liis  couches,  whenever 
his  superstition  required.  By  the  help  of  Dr.  Robinson 
and  others,  we  have  furnished  you  water  enough — what 
now  ?  Do  you  yield  the  point  ?  "  No  ;  though  I  grant 
that  Jerusalem  abounded  in  pools  of  water,  the  difficulty 


114  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

in  the  way  of  their  use  by  the  apostles  is  insuperable." 
Ah  !  How  ?  "  There  were  no  places  in  Jerusalem  suit- 
able for  immersion,  except  such  as  were  under  the  con- 
trol of  the  Jews,  who  would  not  have  allowed  the 
apostles  to  use  them.  To  suppose  they  would  is  a  sim- 
ple absurdity."  Summers,  p.  86.  The  words  "  absurd- 
ity" and  "  gratuity"  answer  a  very  valuable  purpose  to 
Dr.  S.,  when  he  is  in  want  of  an  argument.  The  plain 
meaning  of  this  is,  I  suppose,  that  the  hostility  of  the 
Jews  to  the  apostles  was  so  strong  that  it  is  "  absurd" 
not  to  suppose  that  they  would  have  forbidden  them  the 
use  of  these  pools.  So  says  Dr.  Summers  ;  now  let  us 
see  what  Luke  says,  Acts  ii.  43,  46,  4*7 — "  And  fear 
came  upon  every  soul ;  and  many  wonders  and  signs 
were  done  by  the  apostles.  And  they  continuing  daily, 
with  one  accord,  in  the  temple,  and  breaking  bread  from 
house  to  house,  did  eat  their  meat  with  gladness  and 
singleness  of  heart,  praising  God,  and  having  favor  with 
all  the  people." 

Surely,  now,  you  will  grant  that  there  is  nothing  to 
forbid  the  belief  that  the  three  thousand  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost  were,  like  Christ  and  the  Eunuch,  immersed  ? 
"  Yes,"  you  say,  "  where  were  their  cloches?  Most  of 
those  baptized  were  from  a  distance,  and,  perhaps,  with- 
out a  change  of  raiment."  Yes ;  and  "  perhaps"  they 
were  in  a  state  of  nudity,  or  "  perhaps"  they  wore  dirty 
clothes  "  at  a  distance  from  home"  or,  went  to  bed  every 
time  they  had  them  washed.  "  Perhaps"  a  traveler,  at 
the  present  day,  leaves  home,  for  a  long  journey,  with 
only  one  suit  of  clothes  ;  or   "  perhaps"  he  takes  his 


INSTANCES    OF   BAPTISM.  115 

luggage,  containing  a  change,  along  with  him,  and, 
"perhaps"  they  did  one  or  the  other  in  ancient  times. 
As  the  account  is  silent  on  the  subject,  and  as  it  is  a 
very  important,  and  yet  a  very  abstruse  question,  I  am 
sorry  that  I  shall  have  to  leave  the  reader  to  solve  it  for 
himself.  This  is  the  last  straw  at  which  you  can 
"  catch."  Just  now  you  were  standing  in  "  a  dry  and 
thirsty  region  where  no  water  is  ;"  but,  as  we  have 
turned  in  upon  you  enough  of  "  the  element"  to  over- 
whelm you,  like  a  drowning  man,  you  catch  at  a  straw. 
The  word  baptizo  says  that  the  three  thousand  were 
immersed  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  and  we  have  pro- 
duced evidence  to  show  that  nothing  could  have  been 
easier. 

Section  II. —  Cornelius,  Lydia,  the  Philippian  Jailor. 

The  next  case  of  baptism  recorded  in  the  Acts,  where 
the  details  are  not  given,  is  that  of  Cornelius.  Acts  x. 
— "  And  they  of  the  circumcision,  which  believed,  were 
astonished,  as  many  as  came  with  Peter,  because  that  on 
the  Gentiles  also  was  poured  out  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  Then  answered  Peter,  can  any  man  forbid  water 
that  these  should  not  be  baptized,  which  have  received 
the  Holy  Ghost,  as  well  as  we  ?  And  he  commanded 
them  to  be  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord."  This 
was  the  first  instance  in  which  a  Gentile  had  received 
the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  So  strong  was  the  religious 
prejudice,  in  the  Jewish  mind,  against  the  Gentiles,  that 
even  Peter  felt  an  utter  repugnance  to  obey  the  sum- 
mons which  called  him   to  the  house  of  Cornelius — 


116  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    ANT)    SUBJECTS. 

esteeming  the  Gentiles,  however  estimable  in  other  re- 
spects, in  religious  things,  like  certain  animals  proscribed 
by  Jewish  law,  "  common  and  unclean."  And  not  until 
he  had  fallen  into  a  trance,  and  God  had,  by  a  super- 
natural manifestation,  taught  him  not  to  esteem  any 
thing  unclean  which  He  had  cleansed,  was  he  prepared 
to  accompany  the  messengers  of  Cornelius.  Peter, 
knowing  the  deep  prejudice  which  had  just  been  dis- 
lodged from  his  own  mind,  and  seeing  the  astonishment 
of  those  of  the  circumcision  present,  as  if  hardly  cer- 
tain whether  it  was  right  for  him  to  proceed,  or  unwill- 
ing hastily  to  shock  the  prejudices  of  his  Jewish  com- 
panions, inquired  whether  any  one  present,  after  these 
manifestations,  could  forbid  to  Cornelius  the  Christian 
rite  of  baptism — "  Can  any  man  forbid  water  that  these 
should  not  be  baptized,"  &c. — a  circumlocution  for  the 
more  simple  expression — Can  any  Jew  present  forbid 
these  to  be  baptized,  since  they  also  have  received  the 
Holy  Ghost  ?  Dr.  S.  and  others  make  the  question 
elliptical — "  Can  any  man  forbid  water"  (evidently  to  be 
brought})  p.  87.  Very  well.  The  sense  completed, 
then,  would  be — nobody  objected,  and  water  was 
brought,  and  Peter  baptized  them.  Nothing  of  the 
kind  ;  the  inspired  writer  contradicts  it.  If  water  was 
called  for,  and  nobody  objected,  water  was  brought ; 
why,  then,  did  not  Peter  baptize  them  himself  ?  Evi- 
dently because  others,  besides  the  apostles,  could  admin- 
ister the  ordinance,  and  there  not  being  water  at  hand 
enough  for  immersion,  Peter  commanded  some  one  else 
to  repair  with  them  to  a  suitable  place,  and  baptize  them. 


INSTANCES    OF    BAPTISM.  11*? 

Lydia's  baptism  next  claims  our  attention.     Says  Dr. 
S.  : — "  Who    can  believe  that    Lydia    and    her  family 
(Luke  calls  it  household )  were   immersed  in  the  river 
Strymon,  near  which  prayer  was  wont  to  be  made,  and 
where  the  apostle's  sermon  was  preached  ?"  p.  87.   Why 
not,  Dr.  Summers  ?    Was  there  not  a  sufficient  depth  of 
water  ?     Was  the  river  Strymon  like  the  river  Jordan, 
"  John's  baptistery,  altogether  too  large,  and  at  the  same 
time   infinitely  too  small  (!)  for   their  plunging   pur- 
poses?" p.  109.     The  city  of  Jerusalem   contained  too 
little  water,  and   the  rivers   Strymon   and  Jordan   too 
much  for  "plunging  purposes."   "Altogether  too  large," 
and,  by  an  act  of  theological   legerdemain,  that  throws 
into  the   shade   the  exploits   of  Herr  Alexander,  "infi- 
nitely too  small."   Dr.  Summers's  ancient  rivers  have  no 
parallel,  unless  it  be  found  in  his  arguments,  which  are, 
at  once,  too  profound  to  be  understood,  and  too  shallow 
to  produce  conviction.     Jordan  is  "  too   large"  for  John 
to  immerse  a  full-grown  Jew  into,  but  not  too  large  for 
the   immersion   of  a  hyssop-sprinkler  !     Verily,  Doctor 
Summers,  thou  art  beside  thyself;  much  learning  doth 
make   thee   mad.     Your  remarks  brings   to   my  mind, 
though  it  exceeds  the  sagacity  of  the  considerate  coun- 
tryman of  Diedrich  Knickerbocker,  in   one  of  the  inte- 
rior towns  of  New  York,  who  is  reported  to  have  cut  a 
large  hole  under  his  barn  door  for  the  large  cat  to  pass 
through,  and  a  small  hole,  by  its  side,  to  give   access 
to   the  littl*  cat,  thinking,  I  suppose — since   you   have 
thrown  light  upon  it — that  the  larger  orifice  was  "  alto- 
gether too  large/'  for  the  little  cat  to  pass  through  ! 


118  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

"  As  soon  as  she  was  converted,  she  and  her  children 
(Luke  says  not  one  word  about  '  her  children')  were 
baptized,  but  not  the  slighest  intimation  was  given  that 
there  \^as  a  moment's  delay  for  change  of  apparel,  and 
certainly  she  could  not  be  immersed  without  this."  (lb.) 
The  same  everlasting  objection  about  the  clothes !  What 
has  Dr.  Summers  to  do  with  Lydia's  dress  ?  Why 
should  he  require  that  the  inspired  historian  should  per- 
form the  part  of  a  reporter  for  a  court  journal,  and  that 
he  should  fix  the  attention  of  a  man  of  his  nice  "  sensi- 
bilities" upon  the  details  of  a  female  dress  ?  That  Lydia 
was  an  honest  woman  we  know ;  that  her  tastes  were 
as  fastidious  as  Dr.  S.'s  would  seem  to  be,  Ave  cannot 
tell,  and  we  have  no  doubt  that  her  baptism  was  per- 
formed with  all  necessary  regard  to  propriety,  even  if, 
for  this  purpose,  it  had  been  requisite  to  go  or  send  to 
her  house,  which  was  not  far  off,  for  the  necessary  facil- 
ities. 

"  But,"  says  Dr.  S.,  "  as  soon  as  she  was  converted  she 
was  baptized,  and  there  was  not  the  slightest  intimation 
given  that  there  was  a  moment's  delay  for  a  change  of 
apparel."  To  this  I  answer,  that  there  is  not  the  slight- 
est intimation  given  that  there  was  not  a  sufficient  delay 
to  make  the  necessary  preparations.  And,  besides,  if 
she  did  not  go  home  herself,  she  may  have  sent  one  of 
"her  children"  to  bring  a  cloak,  or  some  other  outer 
garment,  while  the  apostles  were  going  through  the  pre- 
liminary services.  Or,  if  her  children  were  "  daughters, 
in  whole  or  in  part,"  as  you  tell  us  on  p.  234,  perhaps 
two  of  the  little  girls  ran  home,  at  the  request  of  their 


INSTANCES    OP    BAPTISM.  119 

mother.  We  should  not  be  surprised  at  your  inquisi- 
tiveness  about  Lydia's  clothes,  since  your  success  in  dis- 
covering that  she  had  children,  that  they  were  all 
daughters,  and  young  at  that,  is  likely  to  encourage 
you  to  attempt  any  thing  in  the  line  of  discovery  of 
which  Lydia  is  the  subject.  "  Surely,  she  was  not 
immersed  without  a  change  of  apparel !"  Was  there 
any  thing  in  the  dress  she  was  wearing  that  rendered  it 
unsuitable  to  be  worn  into  the  water  ?  When  your  re- 
searches into  the  nature  of  the  dress  she  then  had  on, 
shall  have  been  as  successful  as  your  inquiry  into  the 
number,  age  and  sex  of  "  her  children,"  and  you  shall 
be  prepared  to  give  definitely  the  reasons  that  rendered 
it  more  unsuitable  to  be  immersed  in  than  any  other 
dress  in  her  wardrobe,  then,  doubtless,  we  shall  be  pre- 
pared to  answer  you  in  another  way,  or  to  surrender  the 
point  in  dispute. 

"  The  immersion  of  a  female,  by  a  person  of  the  other 
sex,  is  revolting  to  us,  under  any  circumstances  ;  it  must 
be  exceedingly  repulsive  to  the  delicate  sensibilities  of  a 
woman.  Yet  Lydia  was  baptized  by  the  apostle — surely, 
not  immersed !"  (lb.) 

1.  There  are  thousands  and  hundreds  of  thousands  of 
refined  females  in  the  Baptist  churches  in  this  country, 
against  every  one  of  whom  this  passage  contains  a 
grave  insinuation.  But  Dr.  Summers  "  devoutly  prays" 
that  his  "  treatise  may  be  the  means  of  allaying,  to 
some  extent,  the  fierceness  of  the  baptismal  controversy." 
p.  7. 

2.  This  paragraph  is  written  bv  a  minister  in  the 


120  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    6UBJECTS. 

Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  whose  discipline 
says — "  Let  every  adult  person  .  .  .  have  the  choice, 
either  of  immersion,  sprinkling  or  pouring."  p.  *76.  We 
are  to  understand,  then,  that  every  time  he  goes  into  the 
water,  M  under  any  circumstances,"  with  a  female,  his 
feelings  revolt  at  that  in  which  he  is  engaged.  Why 
revolt  at  it  ?  The  reason  he  gives  is,  because  he  is  "  a 
person  of  another  sex."  Thoughts  of  an  unworthy  na- 
ture, therefore,  are  suggested  to  his  mind  whenever  he 
sees  another  do  so,  and,  of  course,  whenever  he  does  so 
himself!  And  yet  Dr.  Summers  immerses  a  female,  if 
she  "  chooses  it !"  This  may  do,  so  far  as  it  concerns 
Dr.  Summers's  confession,  but  we  repel  the  insinuation 
which  it  implies  against  the  moral  purity  of  his  highly 
evangelical  denomination,  for  permitting  immersion,  and 
against  the  u  delicate  sensibilities"  of  the  verv  manv  re- 
spectable  females  in  his  communion  for  "  choosing"  and 
submitting  to  it. 

There  is  nothing  about  the  baptism  of  Lydia,  which 
intimates  that  the  rite  was  administered  to  her  in  any 
way  contrary  to  the  meaning  of  the  word  baptizo.  She 
was  by  a  river's  side,  close  by  her  house,  and  there  was 
nothing,  on  the  score  of  propriety,  that  would  prevent 
her  immersion,  any  more  than  the  immersion  of  any 
female  in  the  Methodist  church  at  the  present  day,  "  un- 
der any  circumstances." 

The  narrative  of  the  baptism  of  the  Philippian  jailor, 
though  it  does  not  design  to  detail  to  us  the  circum- 
stances  of  the  administration  of  the  rite,  throws  out  inti- 
mations that  are  nor.  only  consistent  with  immersion,  but 


INSTANCES    OP   BAPTISM.  121 

inconsistent  with  anything  else.  The  jailor,  having 
received  a  charge  to  keep  the  apostles  safely,  thrust  them 
into  the  inner  prison,  and  made  their  feet  fast  in  the 
stocks.  Awaked  out  of  sleep  by  the  earthquake,  and 
operated  upon  graciously  by  the  exciting  circumstances, 
he  sprang  in  and  fell  down  before  Paul  and  Silas,  and 
brought  them  out,  and  inquired  of  them  what  he  should 
do  to  be  saved.  Now,  the  points  of  the  narrative  upon 
which  I  wish  to  fix  the  reader's  attention,  are  :  (1.)  He 
brought  them  out ;  whether  out  of  the  inner  prison  only, 
or  out  of  the  prison  entirely,  is  not  material ;  for  (2,) 
they  preached  to  all  in  his  house,  and  were,  consequently, 
in  the  jailor's  house,  whether  that  was  a  part  of  the 
prison  edifice  or  a  detached  building.  When  he  and  all 
his  believed,  (3,)  they  went  out  of  the  house  for  the  pur- 
pose of  attending  the  administration  of  the  orclinance ; 
for  afterwards  he  brought  them  into  his  house.  As  they 
were  in  there  while  preaching  to  all  in  his  house,  his 
bringing  them  in  again  necessarily  implies  a  previous 
going  out ;  and  this  going  out,  the  text  plainly  intimates, 
was  that  baptism  might  be  administered.  Whether  the 
ordinance  was  administered  in  a  cistern  in  the  prison 
enclosure,  in  the  river  Strymon,  or  any  where  else,  is  not 
material ;  the  account  makes  it  certain,  however,  that  it 
was  not  administered  in  the  jailor's  house.  Now,  if 
sprinkling  or  pouring  would  have  sufficed,  why  was  it  not 
performed  in  the  house  ?  This  passage  implies  immer- 
sion as  plainly  as  anything  can  be  implied. 

u  But  where  was  the  jailor  baptized  ?"     I  have  already 
said,  outside  of  his  house.     "But  I  wish   you  to  name 


122  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

the  particular  place ;  was  it  in  a  tank  in  the  prison,  or 
in  the  river  on  whose  bank  Paul  had  preached  a  little 
while  before  ?"  How  should  I  know  ?  I  was  not  there, 
and  I  have  not  the  same  facility  in  deciding  this  ques- 
tion, with  no  data,  that  Dr.  Summers  had  in  finding  out 
the  sex  and  the  age  of  "  Lydia's  children."  I  can  only 
say,  where  it  was  possible  for  it  to  be  administered. 
Luke  says  there  was,  at  Philippi,  a  river.  The  jailor 
may  have  been  baptized,  like  Lydia,  in  the  river  Strymon. 
To  this,  you  say,  there  are  many  and  weighty  objections. 
Very  well ;  bring  them  forward.  "  Is  it  reasonable  to 
suppose  that  the  jailor  would  have  so  disregarded  the 
obligations  of  his  office,  as  to  trust  the  apostles  out  ?"  I 
answer,  he  did  trust  them  in  his  house,  as  you  will  grant. 
If  he  had  confidence  enough  to  trust  them  as  spiritual 
guides  for  his  soul,  he  had  confidence  enough  to  believe 
that  they  would  not  imperil  him  by  making  their  escape. 
Your  objection  implies  a  lurking  charge  against  the  sin- 
cerity of  the  jailor  and  the  honesty  of  the  apostles. 
"But  in  taking  his  prisoners  out,  he  would  have  run  a 
serious  risk  from  another  quarter.  He  would  have  been 
seen  by  '  thousands  of  the  citizens '  who  would  have  been 
incensed  at  him  for  violating  the  strict  charge  he  had 
received."  But,  my  dear  sir,  it  was  after  midnight ;  and 
if  "thousands  of  the  citizens"  had  been  out  at  that  un- 
seemly hour,  it  would  have  been  for  such  improper  pur- 
poses that  they  would  have  been  more  willing  to  pass 
unobserved  than  the  jailor.  "Is  it  likely,  though,  that 
the  jailor  and  'all  his'  would  have  left  the  house  in 
search  of  water  at  that  time  of  night  ?"     This  is  incon- 


INSTANCES    OF    BAPTISM  123 

sistent  with  your  last  objection.  Perhaps  they  selected 
the  night  to  avoid  the  risk  of  observation  by  the  popu- 
lace— or,  perhaps,  because  they  were  apprehensive  that 
the  authorities  would  put  the  apostles  to  death  the  next 
day,  and  that  this  was,  therefore,  the  only  time  which 
they  could  with  any  reasonable  certainty,  count  upon 
for  attending  to  the  ordinance.  Besides,  can  you  tell 
ma  how  far  it  was  to  the  river  Strymon  ?  So  far  as  you 
know,  it  may  have  washed  the  prison  walls. 

"But  is  it  to  be  supposed  that  Paul  and  Silas  would 
have  violated  'the  ordinance  of  God'  by  going  out  of 
the  prison  contrary  to  the  decision  of  the  authorities  ?" 
I  answer,  (1,)  they  did  go  out  of  the  prison,  for  they 
were  in  the  jailor's  house.  (2.)  The  design  of  going  out 
was  not  to  make  their  escape.  And,  besides,  (3,)  what 
is  the  nature  of  the  charge  which  you  bring  against 
Peter,  and  against  "Peter  and  the  apostles."  Peter  left 
his  prison,  and,  I  suppose,  in  doing  so,  violated  the  ordi- 
nance of  God  ?  Acts  v.  19,  <fec,  xii.  3,  &c.  "But  Paul 
refused  to  go  out  the  next  day."  For  a  very  different 
reason,  however,  and  at  the  summons  of  very  different 
persons.  His  refusal  to  go  out  was  a  defiance  of  those 
very  authorities  you  referred  to  just  now. 

The  last  example  of  this  nature  is  the  baptism  of  Saul 
of  Tarsus,  Acts  ix.  "  We  do  not  see  how  Saul  could  be 
baptized,  by  plunging,  in  the  house  of  Judas,  in  the  city 
of  Damascus,  in  the  street  called  Straight,  especially  as 
it  was  said,  '  standing  upj  (anastas,)  he  was  baptized." 
Summers,  p.  86. 

1.  The  account  does  not  state  to  us  that  he  was  "  bap- 


124  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

tized  in  the  house  of  Judas,  in  the  street  called  Straight," 
and  therefore,  we  need  not  "see"  it.  "And  Ananias 
went  his  way,  and  entered  into  the  house,  and  putting 
his  hand  on  him,  said,"  &c.  "  And  immediately  there 
fell  from  his  eyes  as  it  had  been  scales,  and  he  received 
sight  forthwith,  and  arose  and  was  baptized." 

2.  Why  is  it  that  "we  do  not  see"  how  Saul  could 
be  baptized  in  the  city  of  Damascus?"  Was  it,  too, 
like  Jerusalem  destitute  of  water?  "Are  not  Abana 
and  Pharpar  rivers  of  Damascus  ?"  2  Kings  v.  12.  "  But 
then,  consider  Saul's  debility.  He  had  fasted  three 
days.  Is  it  reasonable,  therefore,  to  suppose  that  he 
went  out,  some  distance,  to  the  stream,  in  his  debilitated 
state  ?"  Can  you  tell  me  how  far  it  was  to  the  water  ? 
Shall  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  order  to  secure  your  implicit 
faith  in  what  he  says,  tell  you,  not  only  how  Saul  was 
dressed,  but  whether  he  walked  or  rode  to  the  water, 
and  how  far  he  had  to  go  before  reaching  it  ?  Besides, 
a  bath  "  in  the  house  of  Judas',"  a  bathing  tub  brought 
into  the  room,  and  filled  with  water,  would  have  suf- 
ficed. 

"  But  he  was  in  the  house  of  Judas,  and  there  is  no 
intimation  given  of  his  going  out."  Nor  is  there  any 
intimation  given  that  there  was  a  vessel  of  water  in  the 
room,  or  that  one  was  brought  in,  from  which  "  the  ele- 
ment could  be  applied  to  him."  If  'there  was  a  neces- 
sity for  him  to  go  out  of  the  house,  in  order  to  attend  to 
the  ordinance,  it  is  implied  in  the  phrase,  "  he  arose  and 
was  baptized."  During  the  progress  of  the  revival  at 
Antioch,  in  the  month  of  August  last,  if  was  customary 


INSTANCES    OF    BAi  TISM.  125 

for  the  congregation  to  meet  at  10  o'clock,  A.  M.,  for  a 
number  of  days  in  succession,  when  the  door  of  the 
church  was  opened  for  the  reception  of  members.  Those 
who  related  an  experience  of  grace,  and  were  received  by 
the  church,  were  baptized  before  the  more  public  reli- 
gious exercises  commenced.  Now,  no  one  would  argue, 
from  this  statement,  that,  as  there  is  no  mention  made 
about  going  out,  these  persons  must  have  been  baptized 
in  the  meeting  house ;  and,  seeing  that  it  had  no  font 
under  its  rc*>f,  that,  therefore,  all  these  persons  had  water 
poured  or  sprinkled  on  them.  Do  you  say  this  is  so 
because  we  understand  the  practices  of  the  Baptists  ?  I 
answer,  by  this  time,  with  the  Bible  in  your  hand,  you 
ought  to  understand,  too,  the  practice  of  the  apostles  and 
primitive  christians. 

But  Dr.  S.  maintains  that  the  Greek  word  anastas 
shows  that  he  was  baptized  in  the  house,  and  that,  too, 
not  "by  immersion  for  he  received  the  ordinance  "stand- 
ing up."  Of  all  the  criticisms  on  Greek  words,  gravely 
put  forth  by  doctors  of  divinity,  this  is  the  most  ludi- 
crous. A  word,  in  an  antique  mode  of  expression,  which 
is  used  to  indicate  motion,  preparatory  to  departure  from 
a  place,  they  bring  up,  all  standing,  cut  it  loose  from  its 
connection  in  the  phrase,  and  when  it  designed  to  state 
that  the  -person  or  thing  moved  off,  make  it  testify,  very 
much  to  its  own  surprise,  that  there  was  no  motion  ar 
all!  The  same  Greek  word  (anistemi)  is  used  in  the 
following  sentences  :  "  Saul  arose  and  gat  him  up  from 
Gilo-;!!."  "  David  arose  and  fled  for  fear  of  Saul." 
"  Saul  rose  up  out  of  the  cave  and  went."     Of  the  same 


120  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

nature  are  other  antique  modes  of  expression,  e.  g., 
"  He  opened  his  mouth  and  spake."  "  He  lifted  up  his 
voice  and  wept."  Now,  suppose  we  apply  the  learned 
criticism  of  Dr.  Summers  to  these  examples,  and  see 
what  will  be  the  interesting  result :  "  Saul  stood  up  and 
gat  him  from  Gilgal,"  i.  e.,  he  went  standing.  "  David 
stood  up  and  fled;"  that  is,  not  walking,  nor  running, 
but  in  a  standing  position.  u  Saul  stood  up  out  of  the 
cave,  (of  course,  with  his  feet  on  the  floor  and  his  head 
above  the  top  of  the  cave,)  and  went ;"  that  is,  went 
standing,  with  his  head  sticking  out  of  the  top  of  the 
cave.  "  He  opened  his  mouth  and  spake  ;"  that  is,  spake 
with  his  mouth  wide  open,  without  ever  bringing  his 
lips  in  contact.  "  He  lifted  up  his  voice  and  wept ;" 
that  is,  wept  on  a  high  key.  Strange  people  those  were 
in  ancient  times,  that  fed  on  foot,  in  a  standing  posture, 
neither  walking  nor  running;  that  spake  with  their 
mouths  all  the  time  ajar ;  and,  when  distressed,  that 
never  wept  on  a  low  note,  but  always  on  a  high  key ! 
But  there  is  no  knowing  what  even  a  very  litte  knowl- 
edge of  Greek  criticism  can  accomplish,  until  it  tries. 
The  learning  employed  in  this  baptismal  controversy 
may,  possibly,  yet  bring  to  light  stranger  things  ! 

Saul  "  arose  " — the  motion  preparatory  to  departure— 
and  was  baptized.  Thus  we  have  seen  that  neither  the 
word  baptizo,  nor  the  examples  of  the  administration  of 
the  ordinance,  as  recorded  in  the  Scriptures,  afford  any 
countenance  to  our  brethren  in  their  opinion  or  in  their 
practice. 


THE  IMPORT  OF  THE  ORDINANCE.        127 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE  IMPORT   OF  THE  ORDINANCE  SHOWS  THAT  IMMERSION 
IS  ESSENTIAL  TO  IT. 

The  King  in  Zion  not  only  had  definite  views  of  the 
forms  of  the  ordinances  which  he  instituted  for  his 
churches,  but  adapted  them  to  be  significant  of  import- 
ant truths.  If,  then,  we  can  ascertain  what  he  designed 
to  teach  by  them,  we  shall  throw  light  upon  the  ques- 
tion as  to  what  is  their  form.  His  inspired  apostle  gives 
us  definite  information  as  to  each.  Of  the  design  of  the 
Lord's  Supper,  Paul  says  :  "  As  often  as  ye  eat  this 
bread  and  drink  this  cup,  ye  do  show  the  Lord's  death 
till  he  come."  1.  Cor.  xv.  And  he  tells  us  that  the 
design  of  baptism  is  to  show  the  death,  burial  and  resur- 
rection of  Christ — to  exhibit,  by  an  expressive  emblem, 
the  faith  of  the  believer  in  the  atonement  of  Chiist,  and 
of  his  union  with  him  in  his  death,  burial  and  resurrec- 
tion. He  maintains  that  the  believer  is  dead  to  sin, 
because  he  died  with  Christ ;  and  says  that  the  rite  of 
baptism  is  designed  to  exhibit  him  as  dying,  as  buried 
and  as  risen  with  Christ.  "How  shall  we,  that  are  dead 
to  sin,  live  any  longer  therein  ?  Know  ye  not  that  so 
many  of  us  as  were  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ,  were  bap- 
tized into  his  death  ?     Therefore,  we  are  buried  with 


128  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

him  in  baptism,  into  death — that,  like  as  Christ  was 
raised  up  from  the  dead  by  the  glory  of  the  Father,  even 
so  we  also  should  walk  in  newness  of  life."  Rom.  vi. 
2-4.  "  The  death  of  Christ  was  the  means  by  which 
sin  was  destroyed,  and  his  burial  the  proof  of  the  reality 
of  his  death.  Christians  are,  therefore,  represented  as 
buried  with  him,  by  baptism,  into  his  death,  in  token 
that  they  really  died  with  him ;  aud  if  buried  with  him, 
it  is  not  that  they  shall  remain  in  the  grave,  but  as 
Christ  arose  from  the  dead,  they  should  also  rise.  Their 
baptism,  then,  is  the  figure  of  their  complete  deliverance 
from  the  guilt  of  sin,  signifying  that  God  places  to  their 
account,  the  death  of  Christ  as  their  own  death.  It  is 
also  a  sign  of  their  purification  and  resurrection  for  the 
service  of  God."  (Haldane  in  loc.)  "  For  if  we  have 
been  planted  together  in  the  likeness  of  his  death, 
we  shall  be  also  in  the  likeness  of  his  resurrection."  v.  5. 
In  the  previous  verses,  baptism  is  likened  to  a  burial : 
here  the  figure  is  changed,  and  the  believer  and  Christ 
are  compared  to  seed  planted,  or  to  trees,  the  roots  of 
which  are  buried  in  the  same  bed,  which  spring  up  and 
grow  together  in  the  closest  union.  "  As  in  baptism  we 
have  been  exhibited  as  one  with  Christ  in  his  death,  so, 
in  due  time,  we  shall  -be  conformed  to  him  in  the  like- 
ness of  his  resurrection."  Both  a  spiritual  and  a  literal 
resurrection  are  referred  to  in  the  emblem  of  baptism. 
In  v.  4,  the  former  only  is  brought  to  view  ;  in  v.  5,  by 
employing  the  future  tense,  the  apostle  refers  to  the 
literal  resurrection  hereafter.  And  thus  lie  unfolds  the 
whole  mystery  included  in  dying  and  rising  with  Christ, 


THE  IMPORT  OF  THE  ORDINANCE.       129 

"  both  in  this  world  and  in  the  world  to  come."  What, 
therefore,  more  appropriate  as  an  initiatiAg  ordinance 
for  Christ's  churches,  than  that  which  teaches  these 
important  things? 

Again,  Col.  ii.  12.  "  Buried  with  him  in  baptism, 
wherein  (i.  e.  in  baptism)  also  ye  are  risen  with  him 
through  the  faith  of  the  operation  of  God,  who  hath 
raised  him  from  the  dead."  Dr.  Summers  (p.  110)  and 
others,  make  labored  efforts  to  neutralize  the  testimony 
of  passages  of  this  kind,  but  without  success.  The  only 
reply  necessary,  is  to  repeat  the  words  of  the  apostle, 
which  are  so  perspicuous  as  to  need  no  illustration,  and 
so  unequivocal  as  to  defy  perversion.  If  any  thing, 
however,  is  lacking,  to  put  the  finishing  touch  of  "  absurd- 
ity" to  Dr.  Summers's  interpretation,  it  is  to  require 
that  and  his  philology  to  go  hand  in  hand.  He  says 
the  word  baptism  signifies  purification,  and  that  it  also 
expresses  the  act  of  pouring  or  sprinkling.  Let  us, 
therefore,  substitute  the  meaning  of  the  word  for  the 
word  itself :  "  Buried  with  him  in  purification ;  in  sprink- 
ling ;  in  pouring."  How  will  that  do  1  Try,  then,  the 
other  passage :  "  Know  ye  not  that  so  many  of  us  as 
were  sprinkled,  poured,  purified,  into  Jesus  Christ,  were 
sprinkled,  poured,  purified,  into  his  death  ?"  Therefore 
we  are  buried  with  him  in  sprinkling,  pouring,  purifica- 
tion, into  death  !  Verily,  it  would  seem  as  if  the  apostle 
had  anticipated  the  attempted  perversions  of  his  language 
now  prevalent,  and  that  he  "Tiad  so  carefully  worded  it 
as  to  make  a  successful  perversion  impossible.  John 
Wesley,  the  founder  of  the  respectable  denomination  to 
9 


130  BAPTISM   IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

which  Dr.  S.  belongs,  could  not  resist  the  conviction, 
that  the  apostle,  in  these  passages,  had  in  view  the  mode 
of  baptism.  John  Wesley  on  Rom.  vi.  4 — '"Buried 
with  him,'  alluding  to  the  ancient  manner  of  baptizing 
by  immersion."  But  since  honest  John  Wesley's  day, 
what  large  numbers  of  learned  men  have  (anastas) 
risen  up! 

Thus  Christ,  himself,  has  given  to  us  the  signification 
of  his  own  ordinance.  If  baptism,  then,  is  designed  to 
show,  by  expressive  emblem,  the  believer's  union  with 
Christ  in  his  death,  burial  and  resurrection,  no  form  of 
the  rite  as  administered  by  Christians,  will  answer  to 
that  purpose  but  immersion  in  the  "liquid  grave."  Our 
opponents,  seeing  the  force — nay,  the  conclusiveness — of 
the  argument  for  immersion,  if  it  be  granted  that  the 
rite  is  emblematical  of  these  truths,  join  issue  with  us, 
and  deny  that  it  has  primary  reference  to  the  work  of 
Christ.  Baptism,  they  maintain,  represents  the  applica- 
tion of  the  Spirit's  influences  to  believers  in  Christ.  As 
their  reasoning,  grounded  upon  this  assumption,  is  more 
plausible  than  others  that  they  advance,  and,  from  its  cor- 
respondence in  sound  to  Scripture  phraseology,  has  had 
more  influence  than  any  other  in  confirming  the  waver- 
ing in  their  ranks,  it  is  expedient  to  meet  it  at  this 
point,  and  see  if  we  cannot  refute  it. 

"As  baptism  with  water  represents  the  application 
of  the  Spirit's  influences  to  believers  in  Christ,  the  mean- 
ing  of  the  term  and  the  mode  of  the  ordinance  can  be 
readily  ascertained  by  a  reference  to  those  passages  of 
Scripture,  which  refer  to  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 


THE  IMPORT  OF  THE  ORDINANCE.        131 

in  connection  with  water  baptism."  Summers,  p.  88. 
He  then  refers  to  a  number  of  passages  of  Scripture, 
which  show,  as  he  asserts,  the  mode  of  the  operation  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  viz  :  That  it  consists  in  " coining  down" 
and  being  '''"poured  out"  &c,  and  adds,  "Then  it  follows 
that  the  coming  doivn  of  the  Holy  Ghost  upon  the  apos- 
tles, and  the  pouring  out  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  the  bap- 
tism of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  and  then  closes,  with  much 
apparent  ecstacy — "  We  pronounce  this  a  demonstra- 
tion. Nothing  can  be  advanced  against  it  but  utter 
cavilling."  p.  89.  Now,  there  never  was  a  man  who  ex- 
hibited a  greater  confidence  of  security  with  less  reason. 
We  undertake  to  sweep  this  away  as  so  much  gossamer ; 
and  we  shall  leave  it  to  the  reader  to  decide  whether 
any  "cavilling"  will  be  used  in  the  process. 

Two  propositions  are  contained  in  this,  each  of  which 
we  undertake  to  prove  is  false.  (1.)  The  ordinance  is 
emblematical  of  the  operations  of  the  Spirit.  (2.)  The 
mode  of  the  Spirit's  operation  is  by  coming  down  by 
falling  upon  and  by  being  poured  out.  And  the  con- 
clusion which  he  draws  from  these  premises  is  :  There- 
fore the  ordinance,  which  is  emblematical  of  it,  should 
correspond  in  mode,  and,  consequently,  it  is  properly  ad- 
ministered by  pouring  or  sprinkling.  Now,  we  beg  the 
reader  to  notice  how  easy  it  will  be  to  demolish  this 
"  demonstration."  That  we  may  take  up  the  last  pro- 
position first,  suppose  we  grant,  for  the  sake  of  argu- 
ment, that  the  first  is  true.  First,  then,  says  Dr.  Sum- 
mers, "  The  mode  of  the  Spirit's  operation,  is  by  being 
poured  out,"  <fcc.     To  this  I  reply  : 


132  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

1.  The  mode  of  the  Spirit's  operation  is  not  known. 
"  The  wind  bloweth  where  it  listeth,  and  thou  nearest 
the  sound  thereof,  but  canst  not  tell  whence  it  cometh 
and  whither  it  goeth  ;  so  is  every  one  that  is  born  of 
the  Spirit,"  John  iii.  8.  The  presence  of  the  Spirit's 
operations,  like  the  action  of  the  wind,  is  known  by  the 
effects  produced ;  but  no  one  can  tell  the  mode  of  its 
operations. 

2.  To  suppose  that  the  Spirit  is  literally  poured  out, 
is  irreverently  and  blasphemously  to  materialize  the 
Holy  Ghost.  Does  Dr.  S.  understand  that,  when  God 
says,  "  I  will  pour  out  of  my  Spirit,"  he  means  that  he 
will  literally  take  the  Holy  Spirit  up,  as  liquid  in  a  ves- 
sel, and  empty  him  out  in  a  stream  ?  And  yet  this  is 
all  the  foundation  his  argument  has.  God  pours  out 
his  Holy  Spirit ;  therefore,  the  water  which  is  used  in 
the  rite,  that  is  an  emblem  of  this,  must  be  poured  out 
also.  Who  does  not  see  that  this  is  a  mere  figurative 
style  of  expression,  adapted  to  our  conception  of  God 
as  dwelling  above  us  in  the  ethereal  regions  ? 

3.  Not  only  does  the  argument  materialize  the  Holy 
Spirit,  but  it  is  "  absurd"  in  supposing  that  the  Holy 
Ghost  occupies,  exclusively,  a  position  above  us.  God 
is  an  omnipresent  being — filling,  by  his  immensity,  all 
space.  He  is  as  much  present  on  earth  and  in  hell,  as 
in  heaven  ;  as  much  in  the  hearts  of  the  wicked  as  in 
the  hearts  of  holy  men  and  angels.  It  is  only  the  mani- 
festations of  his  presence  that  differ  according  to  differ- 
ent localities.  "  Whither  shall  I  go  from  thy  spirit  ?  or 
whither  shall  I  flee  from  thy  presence  ?     If  I  ascend  up 


THE  IMPORT  OF  THE  ORDINANCE.        133 

into  heaven  thou  art  there  ;  if  I  make  my  bed  in  hell, 
behold  thou  art  there.  If  I  take  the  wings  of  the  morn- 
ing and  dwell  in  the  uttermost  parts  of  the  sea,  even 
there  shall  thy  hand  lead  me,  and  thy  right  hand  shall 
hold  me."  Psalms  cxxxix.  7-10.  God  manifests  his 
glory  in  heaven,  and  his  grace  in  the  hearts  of  his  ser- 
vants on  earth ;  he  restrains  his  enemies  while  in  this 
state  of  probation,  and  "  pours  out  the  vials  of  his 
wrath"  upon  his  prisoners  in  hell ;  and  all,  too,  with- 
out a  change  of  locality.  How  irreverent,  then,  does  it 
appear,  for  our  brethren  to  argue  as  if  God  has  to 
change  his  locality,  in  order  to  carry  on  his  operations 
of  grace.  And  yet,  this  is  Dr.  Summers's  "  demonstra- 
tion !" 

4.  But  suppose  that  baptism  does  symbolize  the  mode 
of  the  Spirit's  operations  ;  why  do  you  confine  yourself 
to  the  mode  of  pouring  out  alone?  The  Spirit  is,  figu- 
ratively, represented  by  air,  light,  sound  and  water  ;  and 
all  the  motions  of  which  the  last  is  capable,  are  ascribed 
to  it.  Why  do  you  select  one  mode  to  the  exclusion  of 
all  the  rest  ? 

1st.  It  is  represented  as  a  mighty,  rushing  wind. 
Acts  ii.  2 — "  And  suddenly  there  came  a  sound  from 
heaven  as  of  a  rushing  mighty  wind,"  &c.  This  passage 
is  one  of  "  those  which  refer  to  the  baptism  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  in  connection  with  water  baptism  ;"  and  "  the 
mode  of  the  ordinance  can  be  readily  ascertained  from  " 
it.  Again,  "The  wind  bloweth  where  it  listeth,"  &c, 
"so  is  every  one  that  is  born  of  the  Spirit."  Now,  as 
baptism  is  an  emblem  of  the  mode  of  the  operation  of 


134  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

the  Spirit,  and  as  we  have  found  that  one  mode  is  as  the 
rushing  of  a  mighty  wind,  then  one  mode  of  baptism 
may  be  by  placing  the  subject  in  a  powerful  draft  of  air, 
which  would  so  rush  as  to  be  attended  by  a  "  sound." 
According  to  your  premises,  why  is  not  this  a  valid  bap- 
tism ?  Who  gave  you  the  right  to  select  the  mode  of 
the  Spirit's  operations  you  would  use,  and  to  deny  the 
same  right  to  others  ? 

2d.  Again  :  The  Spirit  is  compared  to  breath,  and 
by  attending  to  the  passages  we  can  ascertain  the  mode 
of  its  operations.  "  He  breathed  on  them,  and  said 
unto  them,  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost ;"  John  xx.  22. 
"Thus  saith  the  Lord  God,  come  from  the  four  winds, 
O  breath,  and  breathe  upon  these  slain,  that  they  may 
live ;"  Ezk.  xxxvii.  9.  Another  mode,  then,  of  the 
Spirit's  operation,  is  by  breathing.  Now,  as  baptism  is 
emblematical  of  the  operations  of  the  Spirit,  and  the 
ordinance  takes  its  mode  from  the  mode  of  the  Spirit's 
operation,  and  as  one  of  these  modes  is  by  breathing, 
then  it  will  be  a  valid  baptism  if  the  administrator  pro- 
nounces the  baptismal  formula,  and  then  breathes  upon 
the  subject. 

3d.  The  Spirit  is  compared  to  the  emission  of  sound  : 
"The  Lord  passed  by,  and  was  manifested  in  the  still 
small  voice  ;"  2  Sam.,  xxiii.  2.  David  says  :  "  The  Spirit 
of  the  Lord  spake  by  me,  and  his  word  was  in  my 
tongue."  "He  that  hath  an  ear  to  hear,  let  him  hear 
what  the  Spirit  saith  to  the  churches."  So  that  our 
refined  opponents,  who  are  so  frequently  shocked  at  our 
ungenteel  and  uncouth  ways,  can  draw  from  this  mode 


THE  IMPORT  OF  THE  ORDINANCE.        135 

of  the  Spirit's  operations,  a  mode  of  the  ordinance  that 
can  be  in  the  strictest  accordance  with  their  cultivated 
tastes.  I  commend  it  especially  to  Dr.  Summers,  and 
to  other  polished  city  gentlemen.  All  they  will  have  to 
do  will  be  to  pronounce  the  baptismal  formula,  in  pres- 
ence of  the  subject,  with  small,  mellifluous,  and  well- 
modulated  voices,  and  the  work  is  done.  The  "  Boaner- 
ges "  of  the  country  would  likely  prefer  some  other  of 
the  many  modes  which  the  Scriptures  offer  for  their 
"  choice." 

4th.  The  operation  of  the  Spirit  is  compared  to  the 
shining  forth  of  light  :  "  God,  who  commanded  the 
light  to  shine  out  of  darkness,  hath  shined  into  our 
hearts  ;"  2  Cor.  iv.  6.  "  I  do  not  cease  to  make  men- 
tion of  you  in  my  prayers,  that  the  God  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  would  give  you  the  spirit  of  wisdom  and 
revelation  in  the  knowledge  of  him,  the  eyes  of  your 
understanding  being  enlightened"  Let  the  subject, 
then,  pass  from  a  darkened  room  into  the  light,  and  as 
he  enters  the  light,  let  the  administrator  pronounce  the 
baptismal  formula,  or  cause  a  ray  of  light  from  an  orifice 
properly  constructed,  to  strike  upon  his  forehead,  (for, 
as  in  the  use  of  water,  it  is  the  light,  and  not  the  quan- 
tity of  it,  that  is  necessary,)  and  as  it  strikes  him,  let  the 
administrator  pronounce  the  formula,  and  the  work  is 
done.  We  commend  this  last,  particularly,  to  the  con- 
sideration of  the  "clergymen  of  the  church,"  whether 
Puseyite  or  otherwise — the  "  church  "  of  which  Dr.  Sum- 
mers's communion  is  a  blood  relation.  How  charming 
and  impressive  would  be  the  effect,  as  the  "dim  religious 


136  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND-   SUBJECTS. 

light"  rests  upon  the  forehead  of  the  subject,  and  the 
deep  and  solemn  utterances  of  the  officiating  priest  are 
heard,  while  the  whole  church,  through  their  views  of 
the  ordinance,  are  shrouded  in  darkness! 

5th.  Again  :  The  Spirit  is  represented  as  an  anoint- 
ing :  "The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  God  is  upon  me,  be- 
cause the  Lord  hath  anointed  me  to  preach  good  tidings 
unto  the  meek;"  Is.  lxi.  "Now  he  which  established 
us  with  you  in  Christ,  and  hath  anointed  us,  is  God." 
"Ye  have  an  unction  from  the  Holy  One,  and  ye  know 
all  things."  And  Dr.  S.  himself  informs  us  that  the 
descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  at  the  time  of  the  Saviour's 
baptism,  constituted  his  anointing  to  the  priesthood 
Now,  as  anointing,  according  to  Dr.  Summers's  principles, 
is  one  of  the  modes  of  the  Spirit's  operations,  and  as 
baptism  is  emblematical  of  his  influences,  and  should 
correspond  in  mode,  therefore  oil  may  be  substituted 
for  "the  element"  in  baptism,  and  annointing,  accom- 
panied by  the  baptismal  formula,  is  baptism.  So  we 
see  the  Romanists  have,  at  least,  as  good  authority  for 
the  use  of  oil  in  baptism  as  Dr.  S.  has  for  descending 
water. 

But  if  all  these  modes  of  the  operations  of  the  Spirit 
were  rejected,  and  we  were  confined  to  its  resemblances 
to  water,  we  need,  by  no  means,  be  limited  to  Dr.  Sum- 
mers's mode.  We  will  engage  to  select  one  as  expressive, 
and  more  decent  and  grateful  than  his  favorite  mode  of 
pouring : 

6th.  The  operations  of  the  Spirit  are  compared  to  a 
well  of  water  springing  up  :     "  But  the  water  that  T 


THE  IMPORT  OF  THE  ORDINANCE.        137 

shall  give  him,  shall  be  in  him  a  well  of  water  springing 
up  into  everlasting  life;"  John  iv.  14;  see  also  vii.  39. 
Here  we  have  a  mode  of  operation  the  very  reverse  of 
that  selected  by  Dr.  Summers.  With  him,  the  Spirit 
is  poured  out  and  falls  upon  ;  in  this  passage  it  springs 
up.  Now,  if  the  mode  of  baptism  is  to  be  taken  from 
the  mode  of  the  Spirit's  operations,  and  one  of  those 
modes  is  as  the  ascending  of  water,  why  should  Dr.  S. 
complain  if  we,  upon  his  own  principles,  decide  to  ad- 
minister baptism  with  ascending  instead  of  descending 
water  ?  Consequently,  all  we  should  have  to  do  would 
be  to  place  the  subject  in  a  spring,  and  while  we  pro- 
nounce the  formula,  let  the  water  rise  up  around  him. 
Who  knows  but  it  was  for  this  reason  that  it  was  said, 
as  our  translators  give  it,  that  Judith  baptized  herself  in 
a  fountain  by  the  camp  ? 

7th.  The  Spirit,  in  his  operations,  is  compared  to  a 
stream  :  "  He  that  believeth  on  me,  as  the  Scripture 
hath  said,  out  of  his  belly  shall  flow  rivers  of  water  (but 
this  he  spake  of  the  Spirit,  which  they  that  believe  on 
him  should  receive,")  John  vii.  38,  39.  So  that  if  we 
select  this  mode,  we  should  have  to  use  a  flowing  stream 
in  connection  with  the  baptismal  formula.  Never  mind 
how  shallow  or  how  deep  the  stream,  so  it  flows  while 
he  stands  in  it,  and  the  inconvenient  and  indecent 
"plunging  process  "  may  be  omitted. 

8th.  But  now  we  arrive  at  the  most  decent,  convenient 
and  refreshing  of  all  the  modes.  The  reception  of  the 
operations  of  the  Spirit  is  compared  to  drinking  :  "For 
by  one  Spirit  are  all  baptized  into  one  body,  whether  we 


138  BAPTISM   IN   ITS   MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

be  Jews  or  Gentiles,  whether  we  be  bond  or  free ;  and 
have  been  all  made  to  drink  into  one  Spirit;"  1  Cor. 
xii.  13.  This  reference  has  the  special  advantage  of 
containing  in  it  the  word  "baptized."  Now,  as  baptism 
is  emblematical  of  the  operations  of  the  Spirit,  and  as 
the  mode  of  the  ordinance  is  to  conform  to  the  mode  of 
those  operations,  and  as  one  of  those  modes,  mentioned, 
too,  in  connection  with  baptism,  is  by  drinking,  then  if 
the  subject  drinks  a  goblet  of  water,  while  the  adminis- 
trator pronounces  the  formula,  it  is  both  a  valid  and  an 
expressive  ordinance.  And  how  decent  and  refreshing 
this  mode  is — how  well  adapted  to  all  classes  and  all 
climes.  It  can  be  administered  in  the  house  of  worship, 
and  no  candidate  will  present  an  undignified  and  humili- 
ating aspect  with  the  water  trickling  down  her  face,  and 
disfiguring  her  dress.  Nay,  it  combines  the  advantages 
of  all  the  other  modes,  since  the  water  flows,  and  ascends 
and  descends.  So  that  neither  administrator  nor  subject, 
from  fear  of  having  selected  the  wrong  mode,  need  put 
up  the  prayer  of  Hezekiah — "  The  good  Lord  pardon 
every  one  that  prepareth  his  heart  to  seek  God,  the  Lord 
God  of  his  Fathers,  though  he  be  not  cleansed  according 
to  the  purification  of  the  sanctuary."*  But  why  need 
we  go  any  further  in  carrying  out  Dr.  Summers's  prin- 
ciples ?  The  reader  can  see  whither  it  has  led  us.  And 
yet  this  argument  from  "  the  mode  of  the  Spirit's  opera- 
tions," is  that  against  which  he  says  nothing  can  be  ad- 
vanced but  utter  cavilling.     He  argues  in  a  climax  to 

*  For  a  further  elaboration  of  this  argument,  the  reader  is  referred  to 
Dr.  Carson. 


THE  IMPORT  OF  THE  ORDINANCE.        139 

prove  "affusion."  1,  "Presumptions  in  favor  of  affu- 
sion;"  2,  "Proofs  of  affusion;"  3,  "Demonstration  of 
affusion."  This  which  we  have  been  considering  is  his 
demonstration.  The  reader  has  seen  the  strength  of  it 
by  what  we  have  already  advanced,  and  is  prepared, 
therefore,  though  we  have  said  nothing  else,  to  judge  of 
the  strength  of  the  two  inferior  steps  of  his  climax. 

The  pouring  out  of  the  Spirit  is  but  a  figurative  mode 
of  expression,  which  no  one  should  have  understood  so 
literally  as  to  decide  from  it  the  mode  of  the  operations 
of  the  Third  Person  of  the  Trinity.  Consequently,  if 
baptism  is  designed  to  represent  that,  it  is  a  figure  of  a 
figure — an  emblem  designed  to  illustrate  a  figure  of 
speech  !  Now,  God's  ordinance  has  a  more  stable  foun- 
dation, and  is  emblematical  of  the  glorious  truths  con- 
nected with  Christ's  vicarious  sacrifice,  and  the  believer's 
interest  in  it. 

Having  ascertained  what  foundation  there  is  for  the 
assertion  contained  in  the  second  proposition  of  the  ex- 
tract from  Dr.  Summers,  let  us  see  if  there  is  any  better 
foundation  for  the  first.  "  Baptism  represents  the  appli- 
cation of  the  Spirit's  influences  to  believers  in  Christ." 
To  this  I  reply  : 

1.  The  Scriptures  nowhere  state  that  this  ordinance 
is  significant,  primarily,  of  the  operations  of  the  Spirit. 
While  we  are  told  to  celebrate  the  Lord's  Supper  in 
remembrance  of  Christ,  we  are  nowhere  told  to  adminis- 
ter baptism  in  commemoration  or  in  illustration  of  the 
work  of  the  Spirit. 

2.  White  we  are  told,  in  epitome,  in  many  places  in 


140  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

the  Scriptures,  that  they  were  baptized,  both  men  and 
women,  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus;  Acts  ii.  38, 
x.  48,  &c. ;  in  no  place  is  it  said,  in  epitome,  that  they 
were  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Why  is 
this,  if  the  ordinance  is  designed  to  show,  primarily,  the 
work  of  the  Spirit  ?  John  baptized  in  the  name  of  the 
Lord  Jesus ;  Peter  commanded  the  people,  on  the  day 
of  Pentecost,  to  be  baptized  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ ; 
many  of  the  people  in  Samaria,  believing,  were  baptized 
in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus  ;  Peter  commanded  Cor- 
nelius and  his  household  to  be  baptized  in  the  name  of 
the  Lord  ;  but  in  no  case  in  the  Acts  are  we  told  that 
the  ordinance  was  administered  in  the  name,  primarily, 
of  the  Holy  Ghost.  This  fact,  of  itself,  is  conclusive  that 
the  apostles  considered  it  to  refer,  primarily,  to  the  work 
of  Christ.  Doubtless,  they  administered  it  in  the  name 
of  the  Trinity,  for  they  were  commanded  so  to  do ;  but, 
in  all  their  references  to  it,  for  the  sake  of  brevity,  they 
speak  of  it  in  connection  with  that  name  of  whose  work 
it  was  pre-eminently  an  emblem. 

To  the  above  references  we  may  add  the  remark  of 
Paul,  Gal.  iii.  27  :  "As  many  of  you  as  have  been  bap- 
tized into  Christ  have  put  on  Christ."  And  we  nowhere 
read  that  they  were  baptized  into  the  Holy  Ghost. 

3.  The  ordinance  refers,  primarily,  to  the  work  of 
Christ,  but,  secondarily,  also  to  the  work  of  the  Father 
and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  It  brings  to  view  the  death  and 
resurrection  of  Christ  as  our  substitute,  and  our  union 
with  him  in  them,  the  wonderful  love  of  the  Father,  who 
was  induced  to  send  his  Son  upon  this  mission,  and  the 


THE  IMPORT  OF  THE  ORDINANCE.        141 

work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  bringing  ns  into  spiritual 
union  with  Christ,  in  purifying  our  hearts,  and  qualify- 
ing us  to  walk  in  newness  of  life.  The  Lord's  Supper 
was  designed  to  show  Christ's  death  alone,  and,  therefore, 
he  commanded  his  disciples :  "  This  do  in  remembrance 
of  me."  Baptism  brings  to  view  Christ's  atonement  for 
the  sinner,  and  his  personal  interest  in  it,  and,  as  con- 
nected with  it,  all  the  parts  which  all  the  Persons  of  the 
Trinity  performed  in  that  wonderful  event ;  and,  there- 
fore, he  commanded  his  disciples  to  baptize  in  the  name 
of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
It  is  an  immersion,  then,  in  order  that  it  may  represent 
a  death,  a  burial  and  a  resurrection.  But  here,  again, 
we  encounter  objections. 

Objection  1. — "  Christ  was  not  buried.  His  body  was 
only  placed  in  Joseph's  new  tomb,  which  was  cut  in  a 
rock  that  cropped  out  of  the  ground."  I  answer,  this 
has  the  singular  infelicity  of  contradicting  Christ  and 
Paul.  The  Saviour  said  that  he  would  be  buried :  Matt. 
xxvi.  12 — "  For  in  that  she  hath  poured  this  ointment 
on  my  body,  she  did  it  for  my  burial."  Matt.  xii.  40 — 
"  For  as  Jonas  was  three  days  and  three  nights  in  the 
whale's  belly,  so  shall  the  Son  of  Man  be  three  days  and 
three  nights  in  the  heart  of  the  earth."  And  Paul  says 
that  he  was  buried  :  1  Cor.  xv.  3,  4 — "  For  I  delivered 
unto  you,  first  of  all,  that  which  I  received,  how  that 
Christ  died  for  our  sins,  according  to  the  Scriptures ; 
and  that  he  was  buried,  and  that  he  rose  again  the  third 
day,  according  to  the  Scriptures." 

Obj.  2. — "  The  burial  of  Christ  was  an  event  of  no  im- 


142  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

portance.     Why,  then,  should  so  much  stress  be  laid 
upon  it  ?"     I  answer  : 

1.  It  was  considered  of  sufficient  importance  to  be 
mentioned  in  the  Scriptures. 

2.  While,  in  the  sight  of  God,  :t  may  have  been  an 
event  of  little  or  no  importance,  to  men  his  burial  was  a 
fact  of  the  very  first  importance,  since,  to  them,  it  was  a 
proof  of  the  reality  of  his  death. 

Obj.  3. — "  Christ's  death  and  his  resurrection  are  im- 
portant; for  if  the  first  had  not  occurred,  our  sins  could 
never  have  been  atoned  for,  and  if  the  latter  had  not 
happened,  our  faith  would  have  been  in  vain.  We  see, 
therefore,  the  propriety  of  exhibiting  these  in  emblem  ; 
but  his  burial  was  a  mere  circumstance  to  which  no 
great  importance  could  be  attached.  Now,  the  form  of 
the  ordinance,  as  you  interpret  it,  is  more  expressive  of 
the  burial  than  of  the  death  ;  that  which  has  little  or 
no  importance,  is  brought  prominently  to  view,  while 
that  which  possesses  chief  importance,  has  assigned  to  it, 
in  the  emblem,  a  subordinate  position." 

To  this  I  answer,  while  I  grant  that  in  the  scheme  of 
redemption  the  death  of  Christ  is  the  important  event, 
and  his  burial  in  the  sight  of  God  a  mere  circumstance, 
I  maintain  that,  for  representation  by  emblem,  the  burial 
is  the  most  important  event,  since  that  will  necessarily 
imply  the  other.  To  bury  the  body  implies  that  the 
body  is  dead,  and  a  burial  scene  represents,  not  only  an 
interment,  but  a  death  also.  The  immersion  of  the  sub- 
ject into  the  water,  represents  the  burial,  and,  of  conse- 
quence, the  death  of  Christ ;  and  the  emersion  of  the 


THE  IMPORT  OF  THE  ORDINANCE.        143 

subject  represents  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  as  well  as 
the  believer's  spiritual  resurrection  to  walk  in  newness 
of  life. 

Obj.  4. — "  In  immersion,  as  you  perform  it,  the  burial 
of  Christ  is  not  properly  represented.  Your  emblemat- 
ical burial  resembles  more  the  interment  of  a  dead  body 
now  than  in  the  time  of  Christ.  His  body  was  not  let 
down  perpendicularly  into  a  grave,  but  was,  perhaps, 
carried  horizontally  into  Joseph's  sepulchre."  My  dear 
sir,  permit  me  to  say,  this  is  nothing  but  "  utter  cavil- 
ling." AVhen  Christ  calls  upon  you  to  observe  points 
of  resemblance,  you  fix  your  attention  upon  points  of 
dissimilarity.  Christ  gives  you  an  emblematic,  and  you 
demand  a  dramatic  representation.  According  to  your 
principles,  a  sacrificial  lamb  under  the  Mosaic  economy 
could  not  have  referred  to  Christ,  since  it  was  not  slain 
by  being  nailed  to  a  cross.  And  you  ought  to  reject  the 
bread  and  wine  in  "  the  communion  "  as  the  broken  body 
and  shed  blood  of  Christ.  Was  Christ's  body  broken 
exactly  as  you  break  the  bread,  and  his  blood  shed  ex- 
actly as  you  pour  out  the  wine  ?  To  meet  the  demands 
of  your  present  objection,  the  bread  should  be  formed 
into  the  shape  of  a  man's  -body,  ind  nailed  to  the  cross  ; 
and  the  effigy  should  be  filled  with  wine,  which  you 
ought  to  draw  into  goblets,  by  thrusting  a  spear  into  its 
side.  But  even  then,  your  drama,  would  labor  under 
the  disadvantage  that  you  could  not  partake  of  the 
bread,  since  we  read,  "  not  a  bone  of  him  was  broken." 
The  resemblance  between  immersion  and  the  burial  of 
Christ,  is  more  marked  than  that  between  the  breaking 


144  BAPTISM   IN   ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

of  bread  and  the  death  of  Christ.  But  this  you  take  no 
exception  to,  while  that  you  cavil  at.  Christ's  ordinances 
are  both  emblematic,  but  they  are  neither  of  them  dra- 
matic representations. 

Thus  the  import  of  the  ordinance  adds  another  item 
to  the  accumulated  mass  of  evidence  that  baptism  is 
immersion. 


CHAPTER   V. 


THE    METAPHORICAL   USES    OF   THE  WORD   BAPTISM,  SHOW 
THAT   ITS  FORM  IS  IMMERSION  AND    NOTHING  ELSE. 

The  Saviour,  speaking  of  his  approaching  sufferings, 
terms  them  a  baptism  :  "Are  ye  able  to  drink  of  the 
cup  that  I  shall  drink  of,  and  to  be  baptized  with  the 
baptism  that  I  am  baptized  with  ?"  Matt.  xx.  22.  "I 
have  a  baptism  to  be  baptized  with,  and  how  am  I 
straitened  till  it  be  accomplished !"  Luke  xii.  50.  Here 
the  word  baptism  has  the  same  signification  that  it  has 
in  other  places,  only  it  has  a  figurative  application.  And 
the  form  of  expression  that  Christ  uses  is  a  figure  that 
contains,  as  Dr.  Carson  would  say,  its  own  light.     Who 


METAPHORICAL   USES    OF   THE   WORD.  145 

would  think  of  using  the  word  sprinkle  or  pour  or  purify, 
to  express,  figuratively,  overwhelming  sufferings  ?  Bloom- 
field,  a  distinguished  pedobaptist  scholar,  says:  "This 
metaphor  of  immersion  in  water,  as  expressive  of  being 
overwhelmed  by  affliction,  is  frequent  both  in  the  scrip- 
tural and  classical  writers  ;"  Bloom,  on  Matt.  xx.  22. 
Witsius,  another  pedobaptist,  explains  it  thus  :  "Immer- 
sion into  the  water,  is  to  be  considered,  by  us,  as  exhibit- 
ing that  dreadful  abyss  of  Divine  justice,  in  which  Christ, 
for  our  sins,  was  for  a  time,  as  it  were,  absorbed ;  as  in 
David,  his  type,  he  complains,  Ps.  lxix.  2— r'I  am  come 
into  deep  waters,  where  the  floods  overflow  me.'  " 

2.  We  have  already  referred  to  the  passages  in  Ro- 
mans and  Colossians,  which  speak  of  baptism  as  a  burial. 
We  add,  in  this  connection,  Gal.  iii.  27  :  "For  as  many 
of  you  as  have  been  baptized  into  Christ,  have  put  on 
Christ"  Bloomfield  says,  the  phrase,  "have  put  on 
Christ,"  is  "a  metaphor  e  re  vestiaria" — alluding,  per- 
haps, to  the  soldier,  who  put  on  or  enveloped  himself,  in 
the  uniform  of  his  prince.  Beza  says,  Annot.  ad  Gal. 
iii.  27 — "'Ye  have  put  on  Christ.'  This  phrase  seems 
to  proceed  from  the  ancient  custom  of  plunging  the 
adult  in  baptism." 

3.  The  metaphorical  baptism  of  the  Israelites  in  the 

Red  Sea  :     1  Cor.  x.  1,  2 — "Moreover,  brethren,  I  would 

not  that  ye  should  be  ignorant,  how  that  all  our  fathers 

were  under  the  cloud  and  all  passed  through  the  sea,  and 

were  all  baptized  unto  Moses,  in  the  cloud  and  in  the 

sea."1     The  preposition  translated  "  unto,"  here,  is  eis ; 

and  the  proper  rendering,  therefore,  is  "immersed  into 
10 


146  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea."  It  gave  me  all 
proper  concern  when  the  highly  esteemed  gentleman, 
"the  Presiding  Elder  of  this  District,"  undertook  to 
trace,  the  other  day,  the  consequences  of  this  translation 
to  the  unfortunate  lawgiver  of  Israel :  "  If  eis  is  to  be 
translated  into,  and  baptizo  to  immerse,  the  consequence 
would  have  been  that,  as  there  were  six  hundred  thou- 
sand, at  least,  among  the  people,  an  immersion  of  them 
all  into  Moses  (to  use  his  own  "pregnant  language") 
would  have  made  him  more  pregnant  with  Jews  than 
was  ever  the  man  among-  the  tombs  with  devils  !"  Now, 
our  philology  means  to  be  amiable  and  humane,  and  I 
confess  that,  for  the  moment,  it  was  staggered  to  a  proper 
degree  by  the  effect  it  was  producing  ;  but  then  it  very 
soon  recovered  its  equanimity,  by  reflecting  that  it  would 
make  but  little  difference,  so  far  as  the  comfort  of  Moses 
was  concerned,  even  though  the  six  hundred  thousand 
had  been  poured  into  or  on  him  in  a  constant  stream,  or 
even  been  sprinkled  into  him  two  or  three  at  a  time. 

It  is  the  same  form  of  expression  as  is  found  in  Gal. 
iii.  27 — "As  many  of  you  as  have  been  baptized  into 
Christ,"  <fec.  The  mind  of  Paul  was,  doubtless,  struck 
by  two  points  of  resemblance  between  the  baptism  of 
a  believer,  and  the  passage  of  the  Israelites  through  the 
deep. 

1st.  By  following  Moses  into  the  sea,  the  waters  of 
which  could,  the}*  knew,  at  any  time,  unite  and  swallow 
them  up,  they  exhibited  faith  in  the  divine  mission  of 
Moses.  This  passage  through  the  sea  was,  then,  at  once 
an  exhibition  of  their  confidence  in  Moses,  and,  figura- 


METAPHORICAL    USES    OF   THE    WORD.  147 

tively,  the  initiating  rite  into  that  faith.  The  believer, 
in  entering  into  the  baptismal  waters,  professes  faith  in 
Christ ;  the  Israelites,  by  entering  into  the  sea,  professed 
faith  in  Moses.  The  believer,  by  submitting  to  the  ordi- 
nance, is  immersed,  in  emblem,  into  faith  in  Christ.  The 
Israelites,  by  entering  into  the  sea,  were  immersed,  fig- 
uratively, into  faith  in  Moses. 

2.  Another  point  of  resemblance  between  Christian 
baptism  and  the  passage  of  the  Israelites,  was  that  they 
were  each  a  striking  figure  of  a  burial  and  a  resurrection. 
The  people,  as  they  descended  into  the  sea,  were  literally 
immersed  in  the  sea,  though  not  in  the  waters  of  it. 
With  the  sea,  a  high  wall  on  each  side,  and  the  cloud 
resting  over  them,  they  were  entirely  enveloped  and  hid 
from  view.  For,  as  we  are  told,  they  were  all  under  the 
cloud,  and  baptized  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea.  When 
they,  therefore,  descended  into  the  cloudy'  and  watery 
envelope,  they  did,  as  it  were,  enter  into  an  emblemat- 
ical grave,  and  were  buried  out  of  sight ;  and  as  they 
emerged  again,  like  the  believer  rising  out  of  the  liquid 
grave  they  exhibited  an  emblematical  resurrection  from 
the  grave. 

Dr.  Summers  scouts  the  idea  that  the  apostle  makes 
a  figurative  allusion  to  baptism  here.  He  understands 
it  quite  literally.  He  says  :  "  To  call  it  a  figurative  im- 
mersion, is  to  use  an  unintelligible  jargon  that  contra- 
dicts common  sense."  "  But  what  else  can  be  done  by 
those  who  are  determined  not  to  see  that  this  consecra- 
tion of  the  Israelites  to  the  service  of  God,  under  Moses, 
effected  as  it  was  by  sprinkling,  is  called  a  baptism  by 


148  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

the  apostle  V  Some  writers  in  his  denomination  advance 
the  idea,  that  circumcision  gave  way,  at  the  Red  Sea, 
to  baptism.  That,  as  the  Moaic  rite  would  disqualify  the 
people  for  their  laborious  journeys  through  the  wilder- 
ness, God  suspended  it  for  forty  years,  or  until  the  peo- 
ple could  enter  Canaan;  and  that  the  "  sprinkling"  here 
at  the  Red  Sea  was  a  substitute  for  it.  That  this  was 
not  a  metaphorical  allusion  to  the  rite,  but  the  rite  itself. 
This  would  seem  to  be  Dr.  Summers's  opinion,  though,  I 
confess,  I  may  have  misunderstood  him.  I  shall  quote 
copiously  from  him,  so  that  the  reader  may  set  me  right 
if  I  am  wrong.  If  we  ask  Dr.  S.  how  they  were  bap- 
tized ?  he  answers  :  "  Now,  Pharaoh  and  his  host  knew 
that  the  Israelites  were  not  immersed  in  either,  (the  cloud 
or  the  sea,)  though  they  might  be  sprinkled  with  the 
mist  and  spray  of  both,"  p.  81.  The  cloud  and  sea, 
then,  were,  conjointly,  the  administrator,  and  they  were 
baptized  by  sprinkling  and  pouring.  On  the  next  page 
he  advances  a  supposition  the  very  opposite  of  this, 
without  being,  apparently,  at  all  conscious  of  the  incon- 
sistency. But  he  says  (p.  4) — "  For  several  years  he 
has  been  collecting  materials  on  this  subject,"  (baptism) 
and,  perhaps,  both  of  these  were  "  collected,"  and  there- 
fore put  down.  This  course  has,  at  least,  this  advan- 
tage, that  the  train  of  argument  which  will  overturn  one, 
will  leave  the  other  intact,  and  he  will  stand  a  chance 
of  satisfying  a  greater  number  of  readers.  It  "  appears, 
from  the  record,  that  he  (John  the  Baptist)  performed 
the  rite,  in  his  own  person,  as  Moses  baptized  the  Israel- 
ites in  the  wilderness ;  and  why  may  not  John  have  bap- 


METAPHORICAL    USES    OF    THE    "WORD.  149 

tized  the  multitudes  in  the  same  way  ?  He  could 
marshal  them  in  convenient  order,  and  sprinkle  them, 
either  with  or  without  the  bunch  of  hyssop  which  was 
employed  by  Moses,"  p.  82.  The  Israelites,  then,  had 
the  ordinance  of  baptism  literally  administered  to  them, 
and  Moses  was  the  administrator.  We  know  not  which 
of  these  is  the  favorite  supposition  of  Dr.  Summers,  or 
whether  they  struggle  with  each  other  for  the  preference. 
But  let  us  take  the  last  first.  Moses,  then,  with  a  bunch 
of  hyssop,  sprinkled  the  people  while  they  were  in  the 
sea ;  for  we  read  :  "  they  wrere  baptized  unto  Moses  in 
the  cloud  and  in  the  sea."  The  number  of  the  people 
was  "  about  six  hundred  thousand  on  foot,  that  were 
men,  beside  children,  and  a  mixed  multitude  went  up 
also  with  them,  and  flocks  and  herds,  even  very  much 
cattle,"  Ex.  xii.  37,  38.  Now,  the  same  difficulty,  en- 
hanced, presses  upon  our  mind,  which  troubled  Dr.  S. 
in  the  case  of  the  immersion  of  three  thousand  on  the 
day  of  Pentecost,  and  of  the  vast  multitudes  that  came 
to.  the  baptism  of  John.  We  cannot  see  how  Moses, 
even  with  the  assistance  of  the  bunch  of  hyssop,  could 
sprinkle  six  hundred  thousand  men.  besides  a  "  mixed 
multitude"  of  women  and  children,  in  the  comparatively 
short  time  of  the  passage  through  the  sea,  fleeing,  as  the 
people  were,  from  the  hot  pursuit  of  Pharaoh  and  his 
host.  It  took  John  "  nearly  a  year"  to  baptize  "  per- 
haps two  or  three  millions,"  when,  too,  it  was  in  his 
power  to  "marshal  them  in  convenient  order,  and 
sprinkle  them  either  with  or  without  the  bunch  of  hyssop, 
which  was  employed  by  Moses."  How  long,  then,  would 


150  BAPTISM    IN    IT3    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

it  take  the  Jewish  lawgiver  to  go  through  the  same  pro- 
cess, with  a  like  number,  without  the  marshaling  ? 
Shall  we  keep  them  in  the  sea  nearly  or  quite  a  year  I 
This  is  my  sum  in  arithmetic,  which  I  commend  to  my 
highly  esteemed  brother,  "  the  Presid  ng  Elder  of  this 
District,"  while  I  am  addling  my  brain  in  trying  to  work 
out  his.  And  you  will  bear  in  mind,  too,  that  Moses 
was  plying  that  bunch  of  hyssop  while  the  mixed  mul- 
titude were  fleeing  with  all  their  might,  changing  their 
relative  positions,  and  mixing  up  among  each  other.  It 
would  have  required  the  knowledge  of  omniscience  to 
have  distinguished  those  among  them  who  had  already 
obtained  the  "  baptismal  seal."  Just  fancy  Moses  run- 
ning along  after  the  people,  out  of  breath,  and  uttering 
the  baptismal  formula  in  catches,  while  he  is  industri- 
ously plying  that  miraculous  bunch  of  hyssop,  and  the 
picture  of  what  appears  to  be  Dr.  Summers's  idea  will 
be  complete.  The  bunch  of  hyssop,  Dr.  Summers,  will 
not  serve  your  purpose  ;  better  throw  it  away,  and  hide 
your  idea,  as  well  as  you  can,  in  the  "  mist  of  the  cloud" 
and  the  "  spray  of  the  sea."  But,  unfortunately,  you 
have  no  cloud  to  serve'you  with  its  friendly  mist.  For, 
I  submit,  that  you  need  something  more  than  a  cloud 
in  the  argument.  A  cloud,  to  serve  your  purpose,  must 
be  elevated  higher  than  your  head.  In  your  apprehen- 
sion that  it  would  be  of  service  to  the  Baptists,  you 
have  removed  the  cloud  so  far  that  it  cannot  aid  you 
with  the  slightest  mist.  "  The  cloud  was,  by  the  way, 
not  above,  but  behind  them"  p.  81.  Perhaps,  however, 
it  was  only  the  dense  cloud — that  which  was  capable  of 


METAPHORICAL   USES    OF   THE    WORD.  151 

enveloping  the  Israelites — that  took  up  its  position  in  the 
rear.  At  your  command,  doubtless,  the  very  lightest 
summer's  cloud  floated  above,  and,  at  'the  proper  time, 
drojiped  down  in  the  gentlest  distillations,  when  the  peo- 
ple were  crowded  in  the  comparatively  narrow  channel 
afforded  by  the  parted  waters.  There  is  no  calculating, 
with  certainty,  the  shape  and  position  which  a  summer's 
cloud  may  assume.  We  are  replying  to  a  gentleman 
of  intelligence  and  honesty — one  who  occupies,  we  pre- 
sume, a  deservedly  high  position  in  his  respectable 
denomination,  and  we  must  endeavor  to  answer,  with  all 
becoming  gravity,  arguments  that  he  puts  forth  with  a 
face  so  astonishingly  serious.     We  will  try  : 

1.  "The  Israelites  were  sprinkled  by  the  spray  as  the 
wind  blew."     To  this  I  reply  : 

1st.  The  "  strong  east  wind"  blew,  not  to  scatter  the 
water  upon  the  people,  but  to  protect  them  from  it,  and 
pile  it  up  out  of  their  way. 

2d.  If  the  spray  dashed  with  violence  enough  to  be 
carried  over  the  whole  width  of  the  column  of  people, 
as  they  passed  along,  it  must  have  been  very  disagreea- 
ble. Doubtless,  the  avenue  was  comparatively  wide, 
which  afforded  a  rapid  passage  for  a  mixed  multitude  of 
some  millions  of  persons,  with  their  flocks  and  their 
herds  in  flight  from  a  pursuing  enemy. 

3d.  Besides  its  disagreeableness,  such  a  spray  must 
have  contradicted  the  statement  of  Moses,  that  the  people 
passed  "  on  dry  ground."  Such  a  spray  would  have,  as 
its  base,  a  sheet  of  water  which  would  not  only  have 
thoroughly  drenched  those  nearest  to  it,  but  sent  streams 


152  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

along  the  bottom  of  the  sea,  which  would  have  made 
the  people  wade  in  water,  instead  of  passing  over  on  dry 
ground. 

4th.  But  do  tell  us  how  the  spray  was  produced. 
The  water  of  the  sea  may,  by  tempestuous  winds,  be 
raised  into  foam  and  waves,  but  they  can  never  be  turned 
into  spray,  unless  they  be  driven  with  force  against  an 
immovable  obstruction.  And  if  it  be  said  that  the  power 
which  held  the  water  up  in  a  heap  constituted  the  ob- 
struction, then  it  would  have  come  over  upon  the  people 
not  in  spray,  but  in  waves. 

Dr.  S.  argues  in  favor  of  affusion  as  against  immersion 
"  on  the  score  of  amelioration."  "  As  baptism  takes  the 
place  of  circumcision,  there  is  a  strong  presumption  in 
favor  of  affusion.  .  .  .  The  rigors  of  the  old  dispen- 
sation are  done  away  in  the  new.  .  .  .  But  we  submit, 
that  nothing  is  gained  on  the  score  of  amelioration,  if, 
instead  of  circumcising  every  male  received  into  the 
church,  every  male,  and  female,  too,  is  'to  be  plunged 
into  water,  over  head  and  ears,  no  matter  Jiow  cold  may 
be  the  season — how  far  the  administrator  and  subjects 
may  have  to  go  for  a  river  or  pond,  or  how  ill-prepared 
they  may  be,  mentally  or  physical^,  to  submit  to  the 
plunging  operation,"  p.  Y8.  Now,  "  we  submit,  that 
nothing  was  gained  on  the  score  of  amelioration"  by  the 
Israelites  at  the  Red  Sea.  if  they  were  compelled  to  run 
the  gauntlet  between  those  two  walls  of  water,  for 
hours,  drenched* to  the  skin,  and  blinded  by  the  furious 
spray,  to  say  nothing  of  the  cloud  which  was  pouring 
out  water  upon  them  all  the  time.     We  have  no  doubt 


METAPHORICAL  USES   OF  THE    WORD.  153 

they  would  all  Jiave  preferred  to  have  been  "  plunged 
over  head  and  ears  "  at  once,  and  be  done  with  it.  You 
see,  therefore,  what  exploits  Dr.  Summers  performs  at 
the  Red  Sea,  when  he  attempts  to  make  "the  wind  and 
the  sea  obey  him,"  and  become,  conjointly,  the  adminis- 
trator of  baptism. 

2.  "But  could  they  not  have  been  baptized  by  the 
cloud  ?  Do  we  not  read  in  the  77th  Psalm,  'The  clouds 
poured  out  water  ?'  "     To  this  I  answer  : 

1st.  Paul  says  they  were  baptized  in  the  cloud,  not  by 
the  cloud. 

2d.  If  the  clouds  poured  out  water,  they  were  not 
sprinkled  but  thoroughly  drenched,  and  they  passed  over 
not  on  dry  ground. 

3d.  The  tempest  the  Psalmist  speaks  of,  was  sent 
upon  the  Egyptians  for  their  dismay  and  confusion,  and 
not  upon  the  Israelites.  It  was  composed  not  only  of 
rain,  but  of  thunder  and  lightning,  and  earthquake,  and 
the  most  tempestuous  winds.  "The  clouds  poured  out 
water,  the  skies  sent  out  a  sound;  thine  arrows  also 
went  abroad.  The  voice  of  thy  thunder  was  in  the 
heaven ;  the  lightnings  lightened  the  world  ;  the  earth 
trembled  and  shook."  "  Thou  leddest  thy  people  like  a 
flock,  by  the  hand  of  Moses  and  Aaron,"  Ps.  lxxvii.  17, 
18,  20. 

But  the  exploits  of  Dr.  S.  at  the  Red  Sea  are  not  done 
when  he  proves  sprinkling  by  the  passage  of  the  Israel- 
ites ;  he  demonstrates,  as  easily,  infant  baptism  by  it. 
"A  baptism,  by  the  way,  of  men,  women  aud  children — 
a  clear  case  of '  baby-sprinkling,'  to  borrow  a  favorite  and 


154  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

classical  phrase  from  those  who  have  courage  enough  to 
turn  sacred  things  into  profane  ridicule,"  p.  81.  Nothing 
is  lacking  to  put  a  finishing  touch  to  this,  but  for  us  to 
add,  yes ;  a  clear  case  of  the  baptism,  too,  of  "  the  flocks 
and  the  herds — even  very  much  cattle  !"  Such  puerili- 
ties are  doctors  of  divinity  guilty  of !  It  would  really 
seem  as  if  this  subject  of  baptism  is  consecrated  to  puer- 
ilities. 

4.  A  like  resemblance  to  baptism  was  suggested  to 
the  mind  of  Peter,  by  the  salvation  of  Noah  and  his 
family,  in  the  ark  :  2  Peter  iii.  20,  21 — "Where  once 
the  long  suffering  of  God  waited  in  the  days  of  Noah, 
while  the  ark  was  preparing,  wherein  few,  that  is,  eight 
souls,  were  saved  by  water.  The  like  figure  whereuuto 
even  baptism  doth  also  now  save  us  (not  the  putting 
away  of  the  filth  of  the  flesh,  but  the  answer  of  a  good 
conscience  toward  God)  by  the  resurrection  of  Jesus 
Christ."  Peter  saw,  in  the  case  of  Noah's  ark,  the  "figure" 
of  a  burial  and  a  resurrection,  and  he  compares  it,  in  this 
respect,  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism.  Is  there  any 
"figure"  of  a  resurrection  exhibited  in  sprinkling  or 
pouring  ?  Nothing  but  an  immersion  and  an  emersion 
in  the  ordinance  will  correspond  to  the  "figure"  which 
seems  to  have  been  in  the  apostle's  mind.  But  it  is 
objected  that  Noah  and  his  family  were  in  the  ark,  and 
not  in  the  water,  and,  consequently,  they  were  neither 
immersed  in  nor  buried  under  the  waters.  To  this  I 
reply,  that  for  all  the  purposes  of  the  figure  they  were 
both  immersed  and  buried  under  the  water.  Dwelling 
in  the  ark,  they  were  far  below  the  surface  of  the  waters 


METAPHORICAL    USES    OF    THE    WORD.  155 

of  the  deluge,  and  emerging  when  the  ark  rested  upon 
Ararat,  like  the  believer  rising  from  the  baptismal  waters, 
they  exhibited,  in  a  figure,  the  resurrection  from  the 
grave.  Is  it  objected  again  that  this  shows  an  immer- 
sion of  the  ark,  and  not  of  the  people?  I  answer,  just 
as  an  interment,  at  the  present  day,  shows  the  burial  of 
the  coffin,  and  not  of  the  corpse  in  it.  But  understand 
the  passage  any  way  you  please,  and  then  tell  us  how 
sprinkling  or  pouring  can  exhibit  a  "  figure"  of  a  resur- 
rection. 

5.  The  metaphorical  allusions  to  the  baptism  in  the 
Holy  Ghost,  prove  that  baptism  is  immersion.  In  all 
those  passages  that  speak  of  being  baptized  with  the 
Holy  Ghost,  en  is  used,  and  it  should  be  translated  in 
the  Holy  Ghost.  "  I,  indeed,  immerse  you  in  water,  but 
he  shall  immerse  you  in  the  Holy  Ghost."  The  meta- 
phor supposes  the  Holy  Spirit  to  be  the  medium  into 
which  the  believer  is  immersed,  and  with  whose  influ- 
ences he  is  imbued.  On  the  day  of  Pentecost  the  Spirit 
descended,  with  the  sound  of  a  mighty  rushing  wind, 
and,  metaphorically,  "  filled  the  house,  surrounding,  and 
covering,  and  immersing  the  disciples."  If  the  Spirit 
"  filled  all  the  house  where  they  were  sitting,"  those  that 
were  sitting  there  were  immersed  in  the  Spirit,  though 
there  was  no  "  plunging  process,"  to  use  Dr.  Summers's 
favorite  phrase.  "  But  how  can  we  be  immersed  in  the 
Spirit  as  a  medium  ?"  Metaphorically  ;  as  we  can  be 
immersed  in  joy,  in  debt,  in  care,  and  in  ten  thousand 
other  things.  We  give  our  opponents  a  metaphor,  and 
they  object  to  it,  that  it  cannot  be  interpreted  literally. 


156  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

On  their  principles,  if  they  read  that  under  a  pathetic 
speaker,  the  hearers  were  drowned  in  tears,  or  hung  with 
rapture  upon  his  lips,  they  would  either  hang  all  the 
hearers  suspended  from  the  labials  of  the  orator,  and 
suffocate  them  in  their  own  tears,  until  they  are  liter- 
ally dead,  or  convict  the  reporter  of  falsehood.  We  can 
do  no  more  than  to  refer  them  to  the  phraseology  of 
Scripture.  John  says :  "  I  was  in  the  Spirit  on  the 
Lord's  day."  We  are  exhorted  to  "  live  in  the  Spirit." 
"If  we  live  in  the  Spirit,  let  us  also  walk  in  the  Spirit." 
If  we  can  be  in,  or  live  in,  or  walk  in  the  Spirit,  in  any 
sense,  in  the  same  sense  we  can  be  immersed  or  baptized 
in  the  Spirit. 

6.  Numerous  other  metaphorical  allusions  show,  as 
significantly,  the  form  of  the  baptismal  rite.  We  shall 
content  ourselves  simply  to  quote  some  of  them  without 
comment : — "  Arise  and  be  baptized  and  wash  away  thy 
sins."  "That  he  might  sanctify  and  cleanse  it  (the 
church)  with  the  washing  of  water  by  the  word." 
"Born  of  water,  and  of  the  Spirit."  "  The  washing  of 
regeneration,"  &c.  All  the  allusions  to  the  ordinance, 
with  one  voice,  testify  that  its  form  is  immersion.  In 
the  language  of  the  pedobaptist,  Neander  : — "  Baptism 
was  originally  administered  by  immersion,  and  many 
of  the  comparisons  of  St.  Paul  alluded  to  this  form  of 
its  administration ;  the  immersion  is  a  symbol  of  death, 
of  being  buried  with  Christ ;  the  coming  forth  from  the 
water  is  a  symbol  of  a  resurrection  with  Christ,  and 
both  taken  together  represent  the  second  birth,  the  death 


METAPHORICAL   USES    OP   THE    WORD.  157 

of  the  old  man,  and  a  resurrection  to  a  new  life."  Ch. 
Hist.,  p.  197. 

We  have  now  proved  that  the  Greek  word  baptizo, 
which  the  Saviour  used,  means  to  immerse,  and  nothing- 
else  ;  that,  in  all  those  cases  of  baptism  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, where  the  circumstances  are  given,  the  ordinance 
was  administered  by  immersion  ;  that,  in  all  those  cases 
where  details  are  not  given,  there  is  nothing  inconsistent 
with  immersion,  but  many  hints  given  which  imply  it ; 
and  that  the  import,  and  all  the  metaphorical  allusions 
to  the  ordinance,  teach,  with  one  voice,  immersion. 
Surely,  this  constitutes  a  cloud  of  witnesses,  whose  tes- 
timony should  leave  not  one  shadow  of  doubt  upon  any 
unprejudiced  mind.  The  Scriptures,  when  interrogated 
on  the  subject,  cry  out,  with  multitudinous  voice,  and 
without  one  note  of  discord — "  Immersion,  and  nothing 
else."     But  ~ve  have  corroborative  arguments  further. 


158  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 


CHAPTER  VI. 


CORROBORATIVE    ARGUMENTS. THE     TESTIMONY    OF    THE 

GREEK  CHURCH,  AND   OF  ECCLESIASTICAL  HISTORY. 

1.  It  is  a  significant  fact,  and  one  that  ought  to  be 
conclusive  in  determining  the  signification  of  the  Greek 
word  baptizo,  that  the  Greek  Church,  from  the  intro- 
duction of  Christianity  until  the  present  time,  have 
administered  the  ordinance  by  immersion.  They  listen, 
with  derision,  to  the  arguments  that  are  advanced  to 
show  that  the  word  baptizo  means  to  sprinkle  or  to  pour. 
They  are  affected  by  these  arguments  in  the  same  way 
that  you,  my  dear  reader,  would  be,  should  one  gravely 
attempt  to  prove  to  you  that  the  English  word  immerse 
means  to  sprinkle.  "  The  members  of  this  church  are 
accustomed  to  call  the  members  of  the  Western  Churches 
'  sprinkled  Christians,'  by  way  of  ridicule  and  contempt ;" 
and,  like  the  Baptists,  they  immerse  all  such  as  come  to 
join  their  communion.  It  is  no  answer  to  this  argument 
to  tell  us  that  they  practice  many  superstitions.  Their 
testimony  is  introduced  here  to  show  the  meaning  of  the 
Greek  word ;  and,  on  this  point,  it  is  conclusive.  That 
the  fact  of  their  practicing  uniformly  immersion,  may 
not  depend  simply  upon  my  assertion,  I  shall  introduce 
the  testimony  of  standard  pedobaptist  writers.  Dr.  Wall, 
the  distinguished  author  of  the  "  History  of  Infant  Bap- 


CORROBORATIVE    ARGrjIiJfc*TS.  159 

tism,"  says :  "  All  the  Christians  in  Asia,  all  in  Africa, 
and  about  one-third  part  of  Europe,  are  of  the  last  sort, 
(that  is,  practice  immersion,)  in  which  third  part  of 
Europe  are  comprehended  the  Christians  of  Graecia, 
Thracia,  Servia,  Bulgaria,  Rascia,  Walachia,  Moldavia, 
Russia,  and  so  on ;  and  even  the  Muscovites,  who,  if 
coldness  of  country  will  excuse,  might  plead  for  a  dis- 
pensation with  the  most  reason  of  any."  Hist.  In.  Bap., 
p.  ii.,  c.  9. 

Prof.  Stuart  says  :  "  The  mode  of  baptism  by  immer- 
sion, the  Oriental  Church  has  always  continued  to  pur- 
sue, even  down  to  the  present  time.  The  members  of 
this  church  are  accustomed  to  call  the  members  of  the 
Western  Churches,  'Sprinkled  Christians,-  by  way  of 
ridicule  and  contempt.  They  maintain  that  baptizo  can 
mean  nothing  but  immerse ;  and  that  baptism  by  sprink- 
ling is  as  great  a  solecism  as  immersion  by  sprinkling ; 
and  they  claim  to  themselves  the  honor  of  having  pre- 
served the  ancient  sacred  rite  of  the  church  free  from 
change  and  corruption  which  would  destroy  its  signifi- 
cancy."     ("  The  Mode  of  Baptism,"  p.  76.) 

2.  Another  fact,  strongly  corroborative  of  our  argu- 
ment, is  that  for  thirteen  hundred  years,  the  practice  of 
immersion  prevailed  throughout  t\  $■  Christian  world.  It 
is  not  my  design  to  enter  into  the  investigation  of  the 
teachings  of  ecclesiastical  hi^>ry,  further  than  to  de- 
velope  this  fact.  If  we  can  prove  this  from  the  writings 
of  pedobaptist  historians  and  authors,  it  will  testify, 
strongly,  in  corroboration  of  the  -argument  as  we  have 
drawn  it  from  the  Bible. 


' 


160  BAPTISE  IN    ITS    MODS    AND    SUBJECTS. 

Our  opponents  maintain  that  if  we  admit  the  testi- 
mony of  history,  in  behalf  of  immersion,  we  should  not 
rule  it  out  when  it  testifies  in  behalf  of  infant  baptism. 
But  there  is  this  difference  between  the  two  subjects, 
that,  while  infant  baptism  can  be  traced  back  to  the 
close  of  the  second  or  the  middle  of  the  third  century,  im- 
mersion can  be  traced  back  to  the  very  time  of  the 
apostles  and  primitive  christians.  In  the  case  of  im- 
mersion, the  chain  of  connection  extends  back  from  the 
fourteenth  century  to  the  very  time  of  Christ ;  in  the 
case  of  infant  baptism,  the  links  that  constitute  the  his- 
tory of  the  first  two  centuries,  at  least,  are  entirely  want- 
ing. We  may  admit,  therefore,  the  testimony  in  regard 
to  infant  baptism,  and  show  that  the  very  silence  of 
history,  during  these  important  centuries,  constitutes  a 
conclusive  testimony  that  it  is  not  an  apostolic  institu- 
tion. 

Neander,  in  his  Church  History,  p.  197,  says:  "Bap- 
tism was  originally  administered  by  immersion,  and 
many  of  the  comparisons  of  St.  Paul  allude  to  this  form 
of  its  administration." 

Prof.  Stuart  closes  the  citation  of  many  authorities  by 
the  following  concession:  "But  enough.  : It  is,' says 
Augusti,  '  a  thing  made  out,'  viz :  the  ancient  practice 
of  immersion.  So,  indeed,  all  the  writers,  who  have 
thoroughly  investigated  fhis  subject,  conclude.  I  know 
of  no  usage  of  ancient  times  which  seems  to  be  more 
clearly  and  certainly  made  out.  I  cannot  see  how  it  is 
possible  for  any  candid  man,  who  examines  the  subject, 
to  deny  this,"  p.  359.     He  adopts  the  following  from 


CORROBORATIVE  ARGUMENTS.         161 

Brenner  :  "  Thirteen  hundred  years  was  baptism  gener- 
ally and  ordinarily  performed  by  the  immerson  of  a  man 
under  water ;  and  only  in  extraordinary  cases  was  sprink- 
ling or  affusion  permitted.  These  latter  methods  of  bap- 
tism  were  called  in  question  and  even  prohibited." 

Calvin  says  : — "  The  word  baptize  means  to  immerse, 
and  it  u  certain  that  immersion  was  the  practice  of  the 
primitive  church,"  (Inst.  Art.  '  Bap.')  Dr.  Wall,  author 
of  Hist.  Infant  Bap.,  maintains  that  immersion  was  the 
practice  of  the  primitive  church,  and  remarks  :  "  This 
is  so  plain  and  clear,  that  one  cannot  but  pity  the  weak 
endeavors  of  such  pedobaptists  as  would  maintain  the 
negative  of  it.  'lis  a  great  want  of  prudence,  as  well 
as  of  honesty,  to  refuse  to  grant  to  an  adversary  what  is 
certainly  true,  and  may  be  proved  so." 

The  last  authority  I  shall  quote,  is  that  of  Bossuet,  a 
Catholic,  Bishop  of  Meaux  : — "John's  baptism  was  per- 
formed by  plunging.  In  fine,  we  read  not  in  the  Scrip- 
tures that  baptism  was  otherwise  administered  ;  and  we 
are  able  to  make  it  appear,  by  the  acts  of  councils,  and 
by  the  ancient  rituals,  that  for  thirteen  hundred  years 
baptism  was  thus  administered  throughout  the  whole 
church,  as  far  as  was  possible." 

Nothing  is  more  reasonable  than  that  the  primitive 
Christians  should,  for  the  first  century,  or  for  some  time 
immediately  succeeding  the  ministry  of  the  apostles 
follow  literally  the  rites  of  the  church  as  they  were 
administered  by  the  apostles.  For  a  corruption  of  the 
ordinances  it  required  a  lapse  of  time,  and  a  generation 
remote  from  the  disciples,  among  whom  superstition  had 
11 


162  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

made  inroads.  Now,  the  testimony  of  ecclesiastical 
history  is,  that  from  the  time  of  Christ  for  thirteen  cen- 
turies, immersion  was  practiced  universally  as  Christian 
baptism,  "  as  far  as  was  possible."  This  is  so  clear  that, 
to  use  the  language  of  Dr.  Wall,  one  cannot  but  pity 
the  weak  endeavors  of  such  as  would  maintain  the  con- 
trary. 

My  dear  reader,  is  it  possible  for  any  unprejudiced 
mind  to  resist  this  accumulated  mass  of  evidence  ?  We 
have  shown  you  that  the  New  Testament,  in  Greek, 
teaches  immersion,  even  more  clearly  than  the  New 
Testament  in  our  present  English  version ;  we  have 
shown  you  that  those  who  speak  the  Greek  as  their 
mother  tongue,  testify  that  baptizo  signifies  to  immerse, 
and  that  they  tolerate  sprinkling  for  baptism  no  more 
than  do  the  Baptists ;  that  ecclesiastical  history  teaches 
that  immersion  prevailed  for  thirteen  hundred  years  from 
Christ,  and  we  have  answered  and  turned  against  our 
opponents,  all  the  objections  they  have  urged.  We  ask 
you,  then,  as  one  who  acknowledges  the  right  of  Christ 
to  rule  in  Zion,  and  your  duty  to  obey — as  one  who 
trembles  at  God's  word,  how  can  you  suffer  prejudice 
or  early  education,  or  the  influence  of  association,  or  the 
pride  of  consistency,  or  any  other  consideration,  to  in- 
fluence you  to  reject  this  testimony,  and  persist  in  refus- 
ing  to  submit  to  the  ordinance  as  Christ  and  his  apos- 
have  delivered  it  to  you  ? 

Perhaps  you  say,  there  are  still  difficulties  and  objec- 
tions of  a  general  nature,  which  I  have  not  yet  touched, 
that  must  first  be  removed  before  you  can  receive  the 


GENERAL    OBJECTIONS.  163 

conclusion  to  which  my  argument  arrives.  There  is 
nothing,  however  self-evident,  against  which  objections 
cannot  be  raised.  Men  have  objections  even  to  the  real- 
ity of  their  own  existence,  in  spite  of  the  testimony  of 
their  consciousness  and  their  senses.  Those  objections 
we  shall  consider  ;  but  take  care,  in  the  presence  of  the 
heart-searching  God,  that  the  wish,  to  you,  is  not  father 
to  the  thought — that  your  wish  that  the  objections  may 
be  valid,  may  not  be  the  originator  of  the  belief  that 
they  are  valid.  Will  you  pray  the  Lord,  therefore,  that 
your  mind  may  be  divested  of  prejudice,  and  that  you 
may  be  able  to  read  on  further,  with  a  sincere  desire  to 
ascertain  and  to  do  his  will  ? 

Your  general  objections  we  will  show  you  to  be 
weaker,  if  possible,  than  your  particular  ones.  To  do 
so,  however,  will  require  another  chapter. 


CHAPTER  VII. 


GENERAL    OBJECTIONS. 


Objection  1.  "Modes,  in  the  worship  of  God,  are  not 
essential.  We  are  commanded  to  pray,  but  the  mode  of 
our  supplication  is  not  essential.  Whether  we  pray  in 
a  standing  or  kneeling  posture,  or  prostrate  upon  the 


164  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

ground  makes  no  difference.  It  is  at  the  heart  that  God 
looks.  The  Lord's  Supper  was  administered,  by  Christ, 
first,  in  the  evening,  in  an  upper  chamber,  at  a  table  at 
which  those  partaking  reclined.  INot  even  do  you  con- 
sider that  all  these  things  are  necessary  for  the  validity 
of  the  ordinance  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  You  do  not 
spread  a  table  in  an  upper  room,  and  recline  at  it,  &c. 
Why,  then,  should  so  much  stress  be  laid  upon  the  mode 
of  baptism  ?"  I  answer,  because  the  "  mode  of  baptism  " 
is  baptism.  This  is  as  tautological  as  to  say  immersion 
is  immersion.  The  circumstances  of  the  administration 
of  the  Lord's  Supper  are  not  material,  because  Christ 
has  not  commanded  them.  All  he  requires  is  that  we 
should  eat  bread,  and  drink  wine,  in  remembrance  of 
him,  and  to  show  his  death  until  he  come.  When, 
therefore,  in  a  church  capacity,  we  eat  the  broken  bread, 
and  drink  the  wine  poured  out,  we  administer,  in  a  valid 
way,  the  ordinance  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  Should  any- 
one, reasoning  upon  your  principles,  substitute  any  thing 
else  for  bread  and  wine,  or,  taking  the  bread  and  wine, 
should  smell,  and  not  eat  and  drink,  he  might  engage 
in  a  very  impressive  ceremony,  but  he  would  npt  be 
partaking  of  the  Lord's  Sapper.  In  like  manner,  the 
circumstances  of  immersion  are  of  no  importance.  The 
administrator  and  subject  may  go  into  the  water  with  or 
without  "  baptismal  robes ;"  the  water  used  may  be  run- 
ning water,  or  a  pool,  natural  or  artificial,  out  of  doors 
or  in  the  house  of  worship ;  administrator  and  subject 
may  both  go  into  the  water,  or  the  former  may  stand 
on  the  bank  or  outside  the  pool ;  the  subject  may  be 


GENERAL    OBJECTIONS.  165 

immersed  with  the  face  downward  or  upwards,  or  he 
may  be  immersed  under  the  water  perpendicularly,  if  it 
is  deep  enough.  All  these  are  modes  of  immersion,  and 
we  have  no  controversy  with  those  who  select  one  differ- 
ent from  that  which  we  practice.  Christ  commands  an 
immersion,  and  there  is  no  baptism  without  an  immer- 
sion. 

Obj.  2.  "  Immersion  is  an  inconvenient  ordinance.  It 
is  not  every  locality  that  furnishes  the  requisite  depth  of 
water.  And,  besides,  how  inconvenient  to  leave  the 
house  of  worship,  and  go  to  some  distance,  to  seek  a 
river,  creek  or  pond."     To  this  I  answer : 

1st.  On  the  same  principle,  the  worship  of  God  is  a 
very  inconvenient  duty.  It  is  not  every  locality  that 
furnishes  the  requisite  protection  to  a  worshipping  con- 
gregation, from  the  scorching  sun  and  from  the  inclem- 
encies of  the  weather.  We  have  to  provide  for  the 
regular  worship  of  God  by  building  meeting-houses  and 
other  places  of  shelter.  And,  in  the  same  way,  and  with 
much  less  expense  and  trouble,  we  can  provide  conve- 
niences for  baptism  if  nature  does  not  furnish  them  ready 
to  our  hand. 

2d.  You  speak  as  if  you  suppose  that  there  is  some- 
thing sacred  about  a  meeting-house,  and  that  God  can 
;  e  worshipped  nowhere  else.  This,  my  dear  sir,  smacks 
very  much  of  Popery  and  Puseyism.  The  house  has 
been  consecrated ;  therefore,  the  ordinances  are  to  be 
administered  nowhere  else.  Nay,  it  even  excels  Popery  ; 
for  Romanism  permits  midwives  to  sprinkle,  in  certain 
cases,  infants  in  the  houses  of  their  parents.     No  person, 


166  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODS    AND    SUBJECTS. 

whose  baptism  is.  recorded  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles, 
had  the  ordinance  administered  to  him  in  a  meeting 
house,  for  none  existed  at  that  time.  But  if  you  esteem 
it  a  matter  of  any  importance,  I  do  not  object.  This  is 
one  of  those  circumstances  that  may  be  left  to  the  con- 
venience, and  even  to  the  taste  of  the  churches.  You 
can  do  as  the  majority  of  Baptist  churches  in  the  cities, 
and  have  a  font  constructed  in  your  house  of  worship ; 
and  it  will  cost  you  no  more  than  the  bells  with  which 
you  assemble  your  congregations. 

Obj.  3.  "  Christianity  is  designed  for  all  times  and 
places.  We  argue,  therefore,  that  Christ  could  not  have 
required  immersion  exclusively,  for,  in  some  places,  it  is 
impossible  because  of  the  cold,  and  in  others  because  of 
the  scarcity  of  water."  This  objection  is  best  answered 
by  facts  : 

1st.  As  to  the  cold  :  It  is  a  fact  that  the  Greek 
Church  extends,  in  its  territory,  from  the  Mediterranean 
up  to  the  Frozen  Sea — the  region  of  "  thick-ribbed  ice ;" 
yet  they  have  always  practiced  immersion.  "  The  Mus- 
covites, if  coldness  of  country  will  excuse,  might  plead 
for  a  dispensation  with  the  most  reason  of  any."  (Dr. 
Wall.)  In  all  the  continent  of  North  America,  from  the 
Gulf  of  Mexico  up  to  Baffin's  Bay,  wherever  pedobap- 
tists  are  found,  there,  also,  exist  Baptists. "  No  inhabited 
region  has  yet  been  found  too  cold  for  the  existence  and 
the  practices  of  "  immersionists." 

2d.  As  to  the  scarcity  of  water  :  Wherever  there  can- 
not be  found  a  sufficiency  for  immersion,  in  that  place 
there  is  not  sufficiency  of  water  to  sustain  animal  life. 


GENERAL    OBJECTIONS.  16*1 

Wherever  the  region  supplies  water  enough  for  the  ne- 
cessities of  a  family,  it  supplies  enough  for  the  baptism 
of  a  family.  Why,  one  perennial  spring  can  furnish 
water  enough  to  immerse  the  whole  population  of 
Charleston,  if  it  be  properly  husbanded.  The  desert  of 
Sahara,  in  the  greater  part  of  it,  refuses  the  requisite 
supply  of  the  element  for  baptism,  but  we  never  expect 
to  be  called  on  to  baptize  any  one  there,  since  the  same 
scarcity  of  water  has  made  it  an  uninhabited  region. 

Obj.  4.  "  Immersion  is  sometimes  dangerous,  and 
feeble  ministers  cannot  attend  to  it,  because  (1,)  it  ex- 
poses them  to  risk  of  health,  and  (2,)  because  its  per- 
formance is  so  laborious  that  they  lack  the  strength." 
"  How,  it  may  be  asked,  can  invalids  be  baptized,  except 
by  sprinking  or  pouring?"  Summers,  p.  79. 

This  contains  three  points ;  (1,)  danger  to  subjects 
that  are  invalids ;  (2,)  danger  to  administrators  that 
are  invalids;  (3,)  labor  to  which  it  subjects  feeble  min- 
isters. 

1st.  Dr.  S.  says:  "It  is  absurd  to  talk  about  their 
being  preserved  from  the  dangerous  effects  of  immersion 
by  a  special  providence — that  is  to  say,  a  miracle ;  for 
facts,  as  well  as  reason,  prove  that  God  is  not  so  profuse 
in  his  outlay  of  miraculous  influence."  To  all  this,  we 
have  to  say  that,  if  the  health  of  a  believer  is  such  as  to 
make  it  dangerous  for  him  to  be  immersed,  it  is  not  his 
duty  to  be  immersed  so  long  as  that  state  of  health  con- 
tinues— just  as  it  is  not  his  duty  to  attend  upon  the 
preaching  of  the  word  when  confined  to  his  bed  by 
disease.     It  was  not  the  duty  of  the  thief  upon  the  cross 


168  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

to  be  baptized  while  hanging  upon  the  tree.  The  exag- 
gerated notions,  however,  of  the  dangers  attendant  upon 
immersion,  spring  entirely  from  a  religious  hydrophobia. 
Our  brethren  would  see,  if  they  knew  more  of  them- 
selves, that  the}'-  shudder  not  so  much  at  the  physical  as 
at  the  religious  consequences  of  going  into  the  water. 
Who  has  ever  heard  of  any,  even  the  most  delicate 
female,  that  has  been  injured  by  obeying  the  Lord  in 
baptism  ?  During  a  ministry  of  some  years,  in  which  I 
have  administered  the  ordinance,  in  mid-summer  and 
mid- winter,  to  some  hundreds  of  subjects,  no  such  case 
has  come  under  my  own  observation  ;  nor  have  I  seen  a 
citation  of  any  such,  by  any  of  our  opponents,  in  all  the 
books  and  pamphlets  they  have  published  against  im- 
mersion. Surely,  among  the  million  or  so  of  baptized 
persons  in  the  United  States,  one  case  of  injury  from 
immersion  could  be  found,  if  this  argument  has  any 
foundation.  God  does  not  require  his  ministers  to  preach 
when  their  health  disqualifies  them  for  the  work,  nor 
does  he,  by  a  special  providence  or  by  miracle,  preserve 
them  from  the  consequences  of  their  imprudence.  In 
like  manner,  when  the  believer's  health  is  such  as  to 
disqualify  him  for  submitting  to  Christ's  ordinance,  while 
the  disability  continues  it  ceases  to  be  his  duty.  God 
releases  him  from  the  obligation,  and  does  not  accept  of 
a  substitute  of  his  own  invention,  wrhich  he  submits  to 
from  a  superstitious  notion  of  the  virtues  connected  with 
the  watery  rite. 

2d.  It  is  objected  again  that  God  cannot  have  required 
immersion   exclusively,  since  it  is  dangerous  for  some 


GENERAL    OBJECTIONS.  169 

ministers  to  go  into  the  water.  On  the  same  principle, 
you  might  argue  that  He  could  not  have  ordained 
preaching,  since  it  is  dangerous  for  some  ministers  to 
preach.  Many  of  our  most  valuable  brethren  are  inca- 
pacitated for  officiating  in  the  pulpit,  in  consequence  of 
affections  of  the  throat,  and  other  diseases.  Therefore, 
on  your  principles,  God  could  not  have  ordained,  by  the 
foolishness  of  preaching,  to  save  them  that  believe  ;  for 
he  would  not  have  required  of  all  his  ministers,  that 
which  some  of  his  ministers  are  physically  unable  to  do  ! 
When  ministers  are,  on  account  of  disease,  disqualified 
for  preaching,  painful  as  it  may  be,  let  them  give  place 
to  others  that  are  not ;  and  when  their  health  is  such  as 
to  forbid  their  going  into  the  water,  let  them  give  place 
to  others  who  are  not  so  disqualified.  I  have-  met,  within 
the  range  of  my  travels  and  acquaintance,  some  scores 
of  ministers  who  are  physically  unable  to  preach,  but  I 
am  yet  to  see,  for  the  first  time,  the  Baptist  minister  who, 
though  able  to  preach,  feels  that  his  health  would  be 
risked  by  going  into  the  water. 

3d.  A  third  difficulty  in  the  way  is,  that  some  of  God's 
ministers  are  not  blessed  with  bodily  strength,  and,  there- 
fore, the  labor  of  immersion  is  too  great  for  them  to 
perforin.  ( >ne  who  knows  nothing  of  the  subject,  would 
think  that  it  would  require  the  strength  of  a  Hercules — 
nay,  that  even  Hercules  himself. would  have  reason  to  be 
thankful  that  the  exhausting  work  is  not  of  frequent 
occurrence.  Dr.  Miller's  sympathies  are  excited  in  be- 
half of  Baptist  ministers, and  he  does  all  he  can  to  argue 
them  out  of  the   notions  which  lead   them  to  such  ex- 


170  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

hausting  and  laborious  work.  "  Those,"  says  lie,  "  who 
have  witnessed  a  series  of  baptisms,  by  immersion,  know 
how  arduous  and  exhausting  is  the  bodily  effort  which  it 
requires."  No  wonder  it  is  laborious,  when  "  to  immerse 
a  single  person,"  he  says,  "with  due  decorum  and  solem- 
nity, will  undoubtedly  require  from  five  to  six  minutes." 
But  he  descends  to  specifications  and  particulars  :  "  A 
gentleman  of  veracity  told  the  writer  that  he  was  once 
present  when  forty-seven  were  dipped  in  one  day,  in  the 
usual  way.  The  first  operator  began  and  went  through 
the  ceremony  until  he  had  dipped  twenty -five  persons, 
when  he  was  so  fatigued  that  he  was  compelled  to  give 
it  up  to  the  other,  who,  with  great  apparent  difficulty, 
dipped  the  other  twenty-two.  Both  appeared  completely 
exhausted,  and  went  off  the  ground,  into  a  house  hard 
by,  to  change  their  clothes  and  refresh  themselves,"  p. 
90.  How  fortunate  it  was  that  two  "  operators"  were 
present.  Perhaps  it  was  for  this  reason  that  the  Saviour 
sent  out  his  disciples  two  and  two.  After  this,  let  no 
one  wonder  that  the  ministers  of  Christ  are  called  labor- 
ers. Let  us  take  courage,  however,  by  the  reflection 
that  this  is  the  testimony  of  one  who  knoivs  nothing  of 
the  subject  by  experience.  We  never  yet  heard  the 
Baptist  minister  complain  of  the  "  severe  and  exhaust- 
ing efforts ;  and  we  never  yet  saw  the  one  who  was  too 
feeble  to  administer  the  ordinance,  tvho  vms  strong 
enough  to  preach.  Such  statements  as  these  are  calcu- 
lated only  to  amuse  those  who  are  in  the  habit  of  im- 
mersing. The  chief  exercise  of  strength  that  is  requi- 
site, is  used  in  placing  the  subject  under  the  water — the 


GENERAL    OBJECTIONS.  l7l 

upward  pressure  of  the  element,  and  the  effort  of  the 
subject  will  well  nigh  do  all  the  rest,  provided  the  water 
is  of  sufficient  depth.  And  as  to  live  or  six  minutes — 
while  it  would  take  Dr.  Miller  to  say,  "  it  is  a  physical 
impossibility,"  and  Dr.  Summers  to  add,  "  it  is  alike  ab- 
surd and  gratuitous,"  a  Baptist  minister,  who  understands 
his  business,  can  administer  the  ordinance  in  less  than 
one.  And  should  he  have,  to  use  Dr.  Miller's  language, 
"  an  individual  of  large  stature,  or  more  than  common 
corpulency"  to  baptize,  to  give  confidence  to  the  subject 
and  the  spectators,  he  can  take  an  assistant  with  him 
into  the  water — a  course  that  is  uniformly  observed  by 
some  of  our  ministers. 

Obj.  5.  "  Immersion  is  an  indecent  rite."  What  do 
you  mean  by  this  i  Do  you  mean  to  say,  that  either 
because  of  the  want  of  taste  and  judgment  in  the  ad- 
ministrator, or  because  of  a  lack  of  means  at  his  disposal, 
the  ordinance  is  sometimes  administered  in  a  bungling 
and  unimpressive  manner  ?  If  so,  I  acknowledge  it.  Too 
often,  because  of  the  uncoutliness  of  the  administrator, 
or  the  carelessness  of  the  churches,  in  not  securing  a 
sufficient  supply  of  pure  water,  are  we  compelled  to  wit- 
ness, with  pain,  God's  impressive  ordinance  marred  and 
brought  into  contempt.  But  this  is  the  fault  of  those 
who  administer  the  ordinance,  and  not  of  the  ordinance 
itself.  In  like  manner,  we  sit  in  the  house  of  God  and 
listen  with  pain  while  a  blunderer  is  bringing  preaching 
inio  contempt  ;  but  we  never  fail  to  discriminate  between 
preaching  and  t  lie  preacher. 

But.  perhaps,  this  is  not  your  meaning.  Perhaps  your 


172  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

remark  about  indecency  is  confined  to  the  baptism  of  a 
female.  Why  is  it  indecent  for  a  female  to  be  immersed  '. 
Is  it  because  she  is  not  properly  clad  i  But  this  need 
not  be  the  case.  If  she  is  not  properly  clad,  it  is  not 
the  fault  of  the  ordinance,  but  her  own.  That  prescribes 
not  how  she  shall  be  dressed,  and  if  she  has  not  sufficient 
taste  and  judgment  to  suit  a  man  of  your  fastidiousness, 
the  fault  is  her  own — or  yours.  Is  it  to  you,  as  to  Dr. 
Summers,  indecent,  "  under  any  circumstances,"  because 
she  goes  into  the  water  with  "  a  person  of  the  other  sex  ?" 
Then  permit  me  to  say,  my  dear  sir,  with  all  proper 
respect,  that  the  "indecency"  is  in  your  own  heart.  "  To 
the  pure  all  things  are  pure  ;  to  the  impure  there  is 
nothing  pure."  When  you  witness  an  immersion,  the 
man  by  your  side  is  solemnly  impressed,  and  affected  to 
tears,  while  in  your  mind  unworthy  thoughts  are  aroused. 
Why  the  difference  \  The  cause  is  not  in  the  scene,  but 
in  your  own  mind.  How  astonishing  it  is  that  this 
charge  of  indecency  is  brought  against  an  ordinance  by 
those  who  will  themselves  administer  it  to  any  "  adult" 
female  who  "chooses"  it! 

Obj.  6.  "But  though  I  should  waive  all  my  objections 
against  immersion,  and  grant  that  it  alone  is  baptism, 
I  have  such  an  utter  abhorrence  of  the  bigotry  and  ex- 
elusiveness  of  the  Baptists,  that  I  could  never  consent  to 
unite  myself  to  them."  You  express  yourself  in  terms 
very  strong,  and  not  unreasonably  flattering  to  us.  We 
have  not  asked  you  as  yet,  however,  to  join  the  Baptist 
churches.  All  we  have  done  is  to  urge  you  to  submit 
to  the  ordinance  as  Christ  has  instituted  it.     "  Not  ask 


GENERAL    OBJECTIONS.  lYo 

us  to  join  the  Baptist  churches  ?  Why,  you  do  not  even 
admit  that  there  is  any  other  church  than  the  Baptist." 
With  all  my  exclusiveness  and  bigotry,  I  have  never 
said  that  the  communion  to  which  you  belong  is  not  a 
church.  "But  would  you  not  immerse  one  of  our  mem- 
bers who  had  been  already  immersed  by  a  Methodist 
minister,  if  he  should  join  your  communion  ?"  Yes. 
"  There  can  be  no  reason  for  this,  other  than  because  of 
your  belief  that  the  Methodist  is  no  church.  You  re- 
baptize  our  members,  not  because  they  have  not  been 
immersed,  for  that  question  you  never  ask  ;  nor  because 
the  officiating  minister  had  not  been  immersed,  for  upon 
this  point  you  never  make  any  inquiries  either.  And 
you  know  that  we  have  many  immersed  members  in  our 
communion,  some  of  whom  came  over  from  you  to  us. 
You  must  re-baptize  our  members,  then,  because  you 
think  we  are  no  church,  and  that  our  ministers  are, 
therefore,  without  credentials.  It  must  be  because  you 
maintain  that  yours  are  the  only  true  churches,  possess- 
ing a  regular  descent  from  the  apostolic,  and,  therefore, 
possessing  am ong^r yourselves,  exclusively,  the  right  to 
administer  the  ordinances.  And  this  claim,  permit  me 
to  say,  is  sufficiently  ridiculous,  when  the  Baptists,  as  a 
denomination,  can  trace  themselves  back  no  further  than 
to  the  fanatical  Anabaptists  of  Minister  ;  and  those  of 
this  country  owe  their  origin  to  Roger  Williams,  an  un- 
baptized  man,  immersed  by  a  layman,  himself  unbap- 
tized.  Curious  successors  of  John  the  Baptist,  when 
you  owe  your  origin,  as  a  people,  to  Roger  Williams, 
who  had  no  position  at  all  in  the  line  of  succession  from 


174  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

the  'man  sent  from  God/  Surely,  if,  upon  such  prin- 
ciples, the  Methodists  are  not  authorized  administrators, 
neither  are  you.  If  your  denomination  had  not  sprung 
from  Roger  Williams,  your  principles  would  have  re- 
strained you  from  administering-  the  ordinance  until  you 
had  clearly  traced  the  line  of  succession  from  the  first 
Baptist  down  to  yourselves  ;  with  your  acknowledged 
connection  with  Roger  Williams,  your  principles  utterly 
forbid  you  to  administer  the  rite."  Really,  I  must  say 
you  do  not  spare  us  in  this ;  and  if  we  are  not  now 
ashamed  of  our  "  bigotry,"  you  may  well  nigh  despair 
of  ever  producing  in  us  such  an  emotion.  And  I  must 
say,  you  have  not  spared  me  either,  for  you  have  given 
me  topics  enough  to  write  a  book  on.  What  you  say 
does  look  very  reasonable,  and  I  have  no  doubt  but  you 
think  you  have  put  the  Baptists  hors  du  combat.  Let 
us  see,  however,  if  we  cannot,  by  some  means,  rescue 
them  out  of  your  hands. 

There  are  many  topics  embraced  in  this  objection. 
(1.)  Do  we  consider  the  Methodists  a  church,  or  a  branch 
of  it  ]  (2.)  Do  the  Baptists  maintain  that  a  regular 
succession  from  the  apostles  is  necessary  to  constitute 
their  religious  associations  churches,  and  to  qualify  their 
ministers  for  administering  the  ordinances  !  (3.)  Did 
the  Baptists,  in  the  Old  World,  owe  their  origin  to  the 
so-called  Anabaptists  of  Munster,  and  in  this  country  to 
Roo;er  Williams  \ 

Let  us  take  these  up  as  so  many  distinct  questions  : 
1.  Do  we   cansider  the  Methodists  a  church,  or  a 


GENERAL    OBJECTIONS.  1*75 

branch  of  it  2*  This  belongs  more  properly  to  a  dis- 
cussion on  church  government  than  to  the  topic  which 
is  the  subject  of  this  essay.  But,  as  you  have  made  it 
necessary,  I  will  answer  it,  making  first,  however,  the 
proper  discriminations.  Are  the  Methodists  Christians  ? 
Without  reserve,  I  answer,  yes ;  as  much  so  as  others 
who  profess  to  be.  Are  the  Methodist  ministers,  minis- 
ters of  Jesus  Christ  ?  I  answer,  yes.  Is  the  Methodist 
denomination  in  Georgia  a  church  of  Christ  ?  No  ;  nor 
is  the  Baptist  denomination  in  Georgia  a  church  of 
Christ.  The  organized  body  at  "Antioch"  is  a  church, 
and  so  is  the  organized  body  at  "Centre"  a  church,  (or 
ekklesia,)  though,  in  my  opinion,  a  defective  one.  I 
grant  that  the  religious  body  at  Centre  is  a  church, 
though  my  Methodist  brethren  deny  it,  and  maintain 
that  it  is  a  society  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South.  I  find,  in  the  New  Testament,  but  two  senses  in 
which  the  word  church  is  used,  in  connection  with 
Christ's  people:  (1.)  The  whole  body  of  his  redeemed 
people  in  heaven  and  in  earth  ;  as — "  The  general  assem- 
bly and  church  of  the  first-born,  which  are  written  in 
heaven  ;"  and  (2,)  a  particular  local  society  of  christians 
— an  assembly  (or  ekklesia)  that  maintain  the  worship 
of  God,  and  the  ordinances  of  Christ ;  as  the  church  at 
Jerusalem,  the  church  at  Corinth,  and  the  churches 
(not  the  church)  of  Judea.  And  I  do  not  read  any 
where  in  the  New  Testament,  about  "branches  of  the 
church." 

*  The  Methodist  denomination  is  singled  out  because  this  inquiry  wa9 
specially  propounded  to  me  by  one  of  its  ministers,  the  Presiding  Elder  of 
this  District. 


176  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

2d.  "  Do  Baptists  maintain  that  a  regular  succession, 
from  the  apostles,  is  necessary  to  constitute  their  organ- 
ized religious  assemblies  churches,  and  to  qualify  their 
ministers  to  administer  the  ordinances  ?"  This  question 
originates  in  the  superstitious  notion  that  there  is  some 
mysterious  and  efficacious  influence  committed  to  what 
is  called  the  church,  which  is  transmitted  from  genera- 
tion to  generation,  and  which  does  not  deflect  out  of  the 
direct  line  of  apostolical  succession ;  and  that,  conse- 
quently, no  one  can  be  saved,  unless  he  is,  in  some  way, 
connected  with  the  church.  We  give  a  monopoly  of 
such  superstition  and  nonsense  to  Romanists,  and  those 
who  affiliate  with  them — we  leave  it  to  some  of  our  op- 
ponents to  prate  about  a  mystical  virtue  in  the  church, 
or  an  invisible  gift,  transmitted  down  by  priestly  mani- 
pulations, through  succeeding  generations  of  ministers. 

There  never  was  a  people  more  misunderstood  than 
are  the  Baptists.  While  they  are  accused  of  putting  up 
a  claim  to  the  exclusive  possession  of  the  mystical  influ- 
ence, of  which  the  church  is  the  supposed  repository, 
the}7  are  about  the  only  people  that  reject  such  a  claim  ; 
and  are  in  conflict  with  nearly  all  the  rest  of  the  Chris- 
tian world,  because  they  deny  the  existence  of  such  an 
influence.  According  to  their  principles,  the  only  influ- 
ence which  the  church  possesses,  consists  in  the  truth  of 
which  it  is  the  repository,  in  the  holiness  of  its  members, 
ind  in  the  blessing  of  God  upon  the  means  of  grace  they 
wield.  They  do  not  consider  that  priestly  designation 
is  necessary  even  to  authorize  their  members  to  preach. 
According  to  their  opinion,  all  can  do  so,  if  they  preach 


GENERAL    OBJECTIONS.  17*7 

the  truth,  and  can  get  a  congregation  to  listen  to  them ; 
and  it  is  even  the  opinion  of  many  that,  as  Ananias 
baptized  Saul,  so  can  any  one,  in  good  standing,  admin- 
ister the  ordinance  of  baptism,  provided  there  is  a  neces- 
sity for  it. 

Baptists  maintain  that  the  only  apostolical  succession 
consists  in  holding  the  doctrines  and  the  practices  of  the 
apostles.  If  their  churches  are  constituted  according  to 
the  pattern  given  in  the  Efew  Testament — if  they  hold 
the  doctrines  and  maintain  the  practices  of  the  apostles 
and  primitive  Christians,  they,  for  that  very  reason,  are 
successors  of  the  first  churches,  and  nothing  else  could 
make  them  so.  Nay,  they  go  further  :  If  the  aborigines 
in  the  interior  of  Africa  should  by  some  means,  get  pos- 
session of  copies  of  the  Scriptures,  and,  by  the  grace  of 
God,  without  a  preacher,  were  made  wise  unto  eternal 
life,  and  were  to  organize  worshipping  assemblies,  after  the 
pattern  of  New  Testament  assemblies,  such  bodies  would 
not  only  be  true  churches,  but  constitute  a  part  of  the 
regular  succession  from  the  primitive  churches.  "  What ! 
even  though  they  had  to  baptize  themselves  V  Yes  ; 
even  though  they  had  to  baptize  themselves.  The  ne- 
cessities of  the  ease  would  plead  their  excuse,  and  render 
the  ordinance  valid,  even  though  the  first  administrator 
had  himself  never  been  baptized.  "  This  position  you 
take  now  impelled  by  the  exigencies  of  the  argument. 
You  know  there  is  no  other  way  to  escape  the  difficulty 
growing  out  of  your  connection  with  Roger  Williams, 
and  because   you  are  conscious  you  cannot  trace   the 

Baptists  beyond  the  time  of  the  Munster  insurrection." 
12 


178  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

To  this  I  answer:  (1.)  Whatever  may  be  my  motive, 
I  but  state  what  has  been  the  opinion  of  the  Baptists 
in  all  time.  You  cannot  find,  in  the  writings  of  any 
of  our  standard  authors,  from  the  time  of  the  apostles 
unto  the  present  day,  a  sentiment  that  will  conflict 
with  it. 

2.  As  to  Roger  Williams:  we  do  not  feel  ourselves  at 
all  embarrassed  by  our  connection  with  him,  such  as  it 
is.  He  did  but  right  in  submitting  to  the  ordinance  at 
the  hands  of  Ezekiel  Hollyman,  or  any  other  whom  the 
church  might  have  appointed  ;  and  the  necessities  of  the 
case  made  it  as  valid  as  if  it  had  been  administered  by 
the  Apostle  Paul  himself.  It  was  an  immersion  in  the 
name  of  the  Trinity,  by  the  most  suitable  administrator 
that  could  be  found,  and  was,  therefore,  a  baptism. 
The  church  has  a  right  to  designate  any  one,  with  his 
consent,  to  the  ministerial  office,  and  has  the  same  right 
to  appoint  to  any  other  office  or  work;  and  the  church 
at  Providence  appointed  Mr.  Hollyman  to  baptize  Mr. 
Williams. 

At  the  present  day,  and  in  this  country — a  country 
abounding  in  Baptist  churches — a  company  of  unbap- 
tized  believers  would  not  organize  themselves  into  a 
church  until  they  had  submitted  to  the  ordinance  from 
the  hands  of  one  who  had  himself  been  baptized  ;  and 
this,  too,  not  because  there  is  any  invisible  efficacy  pos- 
sessed by  those  who  occupy  a  position  in  a  fancied  line 
of  apostolical  succession,  but,  because,  having  no  neces- 
sity to  plead,  it  is  their  duty  to  use  the  agents  that  come 
up  most  nearly  to  the  scriptural  requirement. 


GENERAL    OBJECTIONS.  1*79 

3.  The  embarrassment  you  ascribe  to  us  exists  only  in 
your  imagination.  If  you  were  better  informed,  you 
would  express  yourself  differently.  It  does  not  seem  to 
be  known  to  you,  but  the  fact  is,  that  Roger  Williams's 
baptism  died  with  him.  His  pastorship  in  the  Provi- 
dence church  continued  not  more  than  four  years,  (some 
say  two,)  and  he  administered  the  ordinance  to  no  indi- 
vidual who  subsequently  became  a  minister.  See  how- 
easy  it  is  to  remove  this  mountain  of  difficulty.  Even 
if  we  believed  in  the  nonsensical  notion  of  the  necessity 
of  succession  from  John  the  Baptist,  Roger  Williams 
would  not  constitute  a  straw  of  difficulty  in  our  way. 
And  yet,  in  your  own  mind,  you  have  been  accusing  me 
of  special  pleading  to  remove  this  difficulty. 

It  is  simply  amusing  to  us,  when  we  hear  you  say 
that  the  Baptists  of  this  country  originated  with  Roger 
Williams,  or  with  any  other  man.  Baptists  are  made 
so  by  a  belielf  of  the  truths  of  God's  Word,  and  a  literal 
obedience  to  the  commands  of  the  King  in  Zion.  "  Who 
was  the  founder?"  asks  Dr.  Summers,  indignantly,  (p. 
189,)  ''who  was  the  founder  of  'the  denomination'  in 
this  country,  but  the  incessantly  lauded  and  almost 
canonized  Anabaptist,  Roger  Williams  ?"  W"e  can  ex- 
cuse Dr.  Summers's  solecism  in  language  by  the  consider- 
ation that  his  iissociation  and  reading  disqualify  him  for 
knowing  any  better.  The  great  ecclesiastical  organiza- 
tion with  which  he  is  best  acquainted,  can  trace  its  his- 
tory back  to  one  man  as  its  founder,  and  in  the  simpli- 
city of  his  heart  he  thought  the  same  must  be  true  of 
those  he  was  assailing.     And  not  being  in  a  very  good 


180  BAPTISM    IN    IIS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

humor  with  them,  because  they  press  him  with  many 
"evils,"  he  is  glad,  in  tracing-  their  pedigree,  to  stop  at 
Roger  Williams  in  this  country,  and  with  the  "  pestilent 
Anabaptists"  of  Germany,  because  he  thinks,  by  doing 
so  he  can  be  more  offensive. 

Wherever  the  seeds  of  unadulterated  gospel  truth  are 
sown  and  take  root,  there  spring  up  Baptist  churches  ; 
and  wherever  such  are  organized,  they  call  no  man  master 
and  founder,  but  are  built  upon  the  apostles  and  proph- 
ets, Jesus  Christ  himself  being  the  chief  corner  stone. 
What  though  their  enemies  may  prove  that  the  much 
maligned  "  Anabaptists  of  Minister  "  were  as  bad  as  they 
represent  them — what  though  it  may  be  shown  that  all, 
save  one,  of  the  Baptist  churches  in  these  United  States, 
are  erroneous  in  doctrine  and  corrupt  in  practice — that 
one  which  should  preserve  its  purity,  would  be  as  really 
and  as  fully  a  church  of  Jesus  Christ,  in  all  its  propor- 
tions and  with  all  its  privileges,  as  it  would  be  though 
all  the  rest  had  maintained  a  steadfast  adherence  to  the 
faith,  and  could  all  trace  their  origin  back  to  primitive 
churches,  by  a  chain  extending  through  the  distance  of 
eighteen  hundred  years,  with  every  link  of  it  shining 
with  undimmed  lustre. 

Eoger  Willliams  may  have  been  the  founder  of  the 
Providence  church  in  the  sense  that  he  was  instrumental 
in  its  organization ;  but  writers  betray  their  ignorance 
of  Baptist  polity  when  they  speak  of  the  Baptist  church 
in  America,  and  of  any  individual  as  the  founder  of  it. 
This  is  as  great  a  figment  of  the  imagination  as  "  the 
visible  church  catholic,"  which  many  speak  of  who  draw 


GENERAL    OBJECTIONS.  181 

their  notions  more  from  the  dogmas  of  corrupt  human 
hierarchies,  than  from  the  teachings  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. If  there  were  no  Baptist  church  in  this  country, 
and  a  company  of  believers  were  to  organize  one,  after 
the  New  Testament  pattern,  it  would  not  only  be  really 
and  truly  a  church  of  Jesus  Christ,  but  it  could,  like  all 
other  Baptist  churches,  trace  its  origin  to  the  Saviour 
and  his  apostles. 

What  difference,  then,  does  it  make  with  us,  whether 
those  troublesome  people  at  Munster  were  orderly  or 
disorderly,  fanatical  or  reasonable  ?  Every  Baptist 
church  is  independent,  not  only  of  all  those  in  the  pre- 
sent, but  of  all  those  in  the  past.  It  obtains  its  exist- 
tence  not  from  a  long  line  of  ancestry — it  receives  its 
vitality  and  authority,  not  from  conferences,  and  synods, 
and  councils,  and  Popes,  but  from  God's  truth ;  and  it 
owes  allegiance  to  none  but  Christ,  the  great  head  of 
the  church. 

But  you  ask  me :  "  Do  you  grant,  then,  that  the 
Baptists  had  no  existence  in  ecclesiastical  history  anterior 
to  the  Munster  insurrection?"  I  answer:  (1.)  If  I 
were  to  grant  it,  that  would  be  admitting  that  our 
churches,  of  the  present  day,  are  not,  scripturally,  the 
legitimate  successors  of  the  apostolic  churches.  Though, 
after  the  revelation  of  "the  man  of  sin" — from  whom 
you  trace  your  descent — all  organized  churches,  after 
the  primitive  pattern,  had  become  extinct,  and  there  had 
been  an  interregnum  for  never  so  many  centuries,  the 
mould  in  which  the  first  churches  had  been  cast,  and 
the  charter  upon  which  they  had  been  organized,  was 


182  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

still  preserved.  Whenever,  therefore,  God's  providence 
opened  the  way,  and  God's  grace  furnished  the  means, 
and  churches  were  formed,  they  were  churches  not  be- 
cause they  were  parts  of  an  uninterrupted  chain  up  to 
the  apostles,  but  because  they  were  organized  after  the 
primitive  pattern,  and  held  the  apostles'  doctrines  and 
the  apostles'  practices. 

But  (2,)  those  holding  the  peculiar  sentiments  of  the 
Baptists  of  the  present  day,  have  existed  in  all  ages  of 
the  world,  from  apostolic  times  to  the  present,  our  op- 
ponents themselves  being  judges.  Under  the  various 
names  of  Disciples,  Christians,  Montanists,  Novatianists, 
Paulicians,  Paterines,  Waldenses,  and  Albigenses  ;  Men- 
nonites,  or  German  Anabaptists ;  Petrobrussions,  Hen- 
ricians,  Arnoldist,  Leonists,  Cathari,  Hussites,  Picards, 
Lollards,  Wicldiffites,  and  Baptists,  they  have  existed 
in  all  ages,  from  the  Saviour  unto  the  present  time. 
And  even  those  German  Anabaptists,  to  whom  you  grant 
we  can  trace  our  origin,  ran  back,  in  their  history,  into 
the  remote  depths  of  antiquity.  Mosheim,  a  standard 
historian  with  you,  and  as  bitter  an  enemy  to  the  Bap- 
tists as  Dr.  Summers  or  any  one  can  be,  says  : — "  The 
true  origin  of  that  sect  which  acquired  the  denomina- 
tion of  Anabaptists  by  their  administering  anew  the 
rite  of  baptism  to  those  who  came  over  to  their  com- 
munioD,  and  derived  that  of  Mennonites  from  the  famous 
man  to  whom  they  owe  the  greatest  part  of  their  present 
felicity,  is  hid  in  the  remote  depths  of  antiquity,  and  is, 
of  consequence,  extremely  diffiult  to  be  ascertained."  Vol. 
4,  p.  429.     A   regular   succession,  in  continuous   series 


G  K.VERAL    OBJECTIONS.  183 

from  the  apostles,  is  not  necessary  to  ns  ;  but,  you  per- 
ceive, we  have  it.  Dr.  Summers,  on  the  other  hand, 
cannot  claim  even  this  for  himself,  without  passing  first 
through  the  English  Church  and  the  Papal  apostacy — 
nay,  he  would  fail  even  then,  for  he  would  find  his 
series,  such  as  it  is,  to  stop  with  the  rise  of  the  Romish 
hierarchy. 

But  I  have  long  since  perceived  that  you  are  anxious 
to  return  whence  we  started,  that  you  may  take  advan- 
tage  of  what  you  consider  my  concessions.  I  have  no 
.]<>ul>t  that  you  have  been  congratulating  yourself  with 
the  idea  that  you  have  me  surrounded  by  a  network  of 
concessions,  which  I  shall  not  be  able  to  break.  Very 
well  ;  we  shall  see.  You  are  at  liberty  to  make  the 
most  of  my  concessions.  "  You  said,  just  now,  that  you 
considered  the  organized  body  at  Centre  a  church, 
though,  as  you  qualified  it,  a  defective  one."  Yes;  you 
quote  me  correctly.  "You  said,  that  the  ordinance  ad- 
ministered by  Ezekiel  Hollyman  was  a  valid  baptism, 
and  that  a  church  could  be  organized  in  Africa,  in  the 
case  supposed,  without  a  preacher,  and  the  members 
could  mutually  baptize  one  another  ?"  Yes.  "  Well, 
then,  the  question  I  have  to  propound  to  you  is  this  : — 
Suppose  the  '  preacher  in  charge'  of  what  you  call  Cen- 
tre Church,  should  immerse  a  believer,  would  it  be  a 
baptism  which  you  would  recognize  V  Yes  ;  if  he  and 
the  church  meant  to  express  the  belief  that  the  immer- 
sion of  a  believer  is  alone  baptism,  and  if  the  adminis- 
trator  had  himself  been  baptized:  or  if  not,  if  the  church 
and  the  subject   could  not  find  an   administrator  who 


184  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

comes  up  more  fully  to  the  scriptural  requirement.  You 
perceive,  then,  that  in  order  to  derive  any  advantage 
from  my  supposed  concessions,  the  church  at  Centre, 
defective  or  otherwise,  must,  like  the  church  at  Vrovi  - 
deuce,  hold  to  the  immersion  of  a  believer  as  the  only 
scriptural  baptism.  "  Well,  then,  I  will  ask  you  another 
question  : — If  the  whole  Methodist  denomination,  which 
you  do  not  grant  to  be  a  church,  were  to  abolish  infant 
baptism,  and  hold  exclusively  to  the  immersion,  of  a  be- 
liever, and  all  its  members  should  submit  to  it,  would 
you,  in  that  case,  re-baptize  any  of  their  members  who 
should  come  over  to  your  communion  V  No.  Though 
the  Methodist  denomination  do  not  constitute  a  church, 
after  the  New  Testament  pattern,  any  more  than  do  the 
Baptist  denomination,  yet,  as  baptism  is  the  only  ques- 
tion under  consideration,  the  irregularity  in  church  organ- 
ization does  not  vitiate  it,  if  it  conform,  in  good  faith,  in 
form  and  subject,  to  the  scriptural  requirement.  What- 
ever defect  there  mav  be  in  church  organization,  is 
obviated  by  the  act  of  the  applicant  for  admission  to 
our  communion  ;  for  his  coming  to  us  would  be  a  volun- 
tary renouncement  of  the  ecclesiastical  polity  with  which 
he  had  been  connected.  "  But  I  cannot  see  why  you 
would  deny  that  to  a  part,  which  you  would  grant  to 
the  whole.  If  the  whole  Methodist  denomination  believe 
and  practice vbeliever's  immersion,  you  will  recognize  it  as 
valid  ;  but  if  any  persons  of  the  large  class  in  the  Meth- 
odist denomination,  who  believe  in,  and  have  submitted 
to  immersion,  should  unite  themselves  to  you,  you  will 
re-baptize  them.     If  the  immersion  of  all,  according  to 


GENERAL    OBJECTIONS.  185 

your  principles,  be  baptism,  surely  the  immersion  of  a 
part  must  be  baptism  too.  I  see  not  how  you  can  rec- 
oncile these  thing's  ;  and  I  shall  be  glad  for  you  to  ex- 
plain yourself  to  me,  if  you  can."  There  is  nothing 
more  easy.  We  shall  give  you  our  reasons  frankly, 
assuring  you,  at  the  same  time,  that  we  do  so  not  with 
the  design  to  be  offensive.  And  we  beg  to  say  that, 
while  we  have  singled  out  the  Methodist  denomination, 
at  your  instance,  we  wish  our  remarks  to  be  understood 
to  be  as  applicable  to  all  other  denominations  of  like 
views  and  practices. 

We  cannot  consider  that,  with  their  views,  the  Meth- 
odists have  any  such  thing  as  Christian  baptism  among 
them.  True,  their  Discipline  provides  that  any  one  may 
be  immersed  who  "  chooses  "  it,  but  then  it  prescribes 
two  other  mode,  which  the  people  are  taught  to  Consider 
more  scriptural,  significant  and  decent.  While  the 
Bible  insists  there  is  one  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism, 
they  prescribe,  as  we  believe  and  maintain,  though  they 
deny  it,  three  baptisms.  The  true  form  of  the  ordinance 
is  placed  in  the  lowest  position,  and  seems  to  have  been 
admitted  by  way  of  compromise,  and  with  the  design 
the  more  effectually  to  destroy  it,  The  Discipline  grants 
to  the  people  the  right  to  "choose"  immersion,  but 
the  chief  influence  of  the  denomination,  and  of  nearly 
all  its  writers  and  preachers,  is  used  to  prevent  such 
choice.  And  whenever  "weak  consciences"  doggedly 
persist  in  demanding  immersion,  the  rite,  in  nine  eases 
out  of  ten,  is  administered  as  something  which  they  can- 
not help,  and  of  which  they  are  ashamed.     Besides  this, 


186  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

they  have  connected  with  their  notions  of  the  ordinance, 
the  baptism  (or  sprinkling)  of  infants,  which  has  been, 
of  all  others,  the  most  fruitful  source  of  corruption  in 
the  so-called  church  of  Christ,  and  which,  if  it  could  be 
successfully  carried  out,  would  banish  true  scriptural 
believer's  baptism  from  the  earth. 

Having  such  views  of  the  nature  and  tendency  of  the 
rite  existing  among  them,  how  can  we  recognize  that 
they  ever  administer  the  ordinance  of  baptism  !  The 
Baptists  are  set  for  the  defence,  in  part  of  Christ's  ordi- 
nance, and  they  cannot  admit  that  to  be  true  Christian 
baptism  which  is  administered  under  protest,  and  then 
only  as  a  compromise,  the  administrator  announcing 
that  he  puts  up,  audibly  or  mentally,  the  prayer  of 
Hezekiah  :  "The  good  Lord  pardon  every  one  that  pre- 
pareth  his  heart  to  seek  God,  the  Lord  God  of  his  fathers, 
though  he  be  not  cleansed  according  to  the  purification 
of  the  sanctury."  Such  a  compromise,  so  far  from  being 
a  valid  administration  of  Christ's  ordinance,  is,  in  our 
opinion,  a  sin  against  God;  "for  whatever  is  not  of 
faith  is  sin." 

"But,  then,  the  subject  was  sincere  in  submitting  bo 
immersion."  In  that  case  he  ouo-ht  to  have  received  it 
at  the  hands  of  one  who  believed  in  it  as  alone  God's 
ordinance,  and  who  was,  in  other  respects,  properly  quali- 
fied. "This  brings  us  back  again  to  the  charge  I  made 
igainst  you  in  the  beginning — that  you  are  influenced 
l»y  a  desire  to  proselyte  us  to  the  Baptist  churches  ;  and 
now  you  have  yourself,  in  effect,  acknowledged  it.  The 
Methodists,  and   other  pedobaptists.  are  not  proper  ad- 


GENERAL    OBJECTIONS.  187 

ministrators  of  the  ordinan/e,  in  the  existing:  state  of 
things;  therefore,  all  of  us  who  believe  in  immersion 
must  submit  to  it  at  the  hands  of  Baptist  ministers,  and, 
by  consequence,  join  Baptist  churches."  A  part  of  this 
conclusion  I  have  no  objection  to.  The  very  tact  that  i 
am  myself  a  member  of  a  Baptist  church,  is  a  pr<><>; 
that  I  believe  it  to  be  in  possession  of  the  truth  on  this 
subject,  and,  of  consequence,  that  I  believe  all  other  de- 
nominations, so  far  as  they  hold  views  different,  are  in 
error.  And  even  if  I  were  openly  and  candidly,  by 
argument,  to  attempt  to  convince  you  of  your  error,  I  do 
no  more  than  it  is  my  right  and  duty  to  do — no  more 
than  it  is  your  right  and  duty  to  do  to  me,  if  you  con- 
sider me  in  error.  And  neither  I  nor  you  would  be 
justly  amenable  to  the  charge  of  proselytism,  in  its  dis- 
reputable sense,  so  long  as  we  confine  ourselves  to  open 
and  candid  arguments.  Should  I  convince  you  that  it 
is  your  duty  to  join  the  Baptist  churches,  I  should  not 
consider  that  I  have  done  something  for  which  I  should 
he  ashamed.  But  should  it  be  possible  to  convince  your 
denomination  to  renounce  "infant  baptism,1'  and  to 
accept  of  the  immersion  of  believers  as  the  only  baptism, 
my  joy  would  be  much  more  enhanced.  In  that  event 
we  would  acknowledge  all  your  members  to  be  baptized, 
and  "whereimto  we  had  attained,  we  would  walk  by  tie' 
same  rule,  we  would  mind  the.  same  things."  Your  ideas 
of  church  organization  would  be  no  barrier  in  the  way 
of  accepting  your  members  into  our  communion  without 
re-baptizing  them.  The  other  points  of  difference  be- 
tween us,  we  wouli     discuss  with  you   calmly  and  in  a 


188  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

Christian  spirit — our  success  in  removing-  this,  the 
greatest  difficulty,  causing  us  to  "  thank  God  and  take 
courage." 

This  last  objection,  though  we  have  considered  it  at 
groat  length,  we  are  aware  is  an  objection  not  against 
immersion,  but  against  the  Baptists.  It  may  be  granted 
that  it  has  all  the  force  which  those  who  urge  it  claim 
for  it,  and  still  the  argument  that  immersion  is  the  only 
scriptural  baptism  remains  untouched.  What,  though 
you  convict  us  of  bigotry  and  inconsistency,  will  your 
duty  to  submit  to  God's  ordinance  of  immersion  be  less 
binding  ?  Suppose,  then,  we  have  even  failed  in  answer- 
ing the  objection  satisfactorily,  what  will  be  the  conclu- 
sion ?  that  immersion  is  not  the  only  true  scriptural 
baptism  ?  or  that  the  Baptists  need  amendment  ?  Shall 
our  errors  and  short-comings  excuse  you  for  disobeying 
God's  plain  and  explicit  command  ?  I  know  this  topic  is 
introduced  adroitly  to  change  the  issue,  and  because  it  is 
thought  that  we  have  not  nerve  enough  to  speak  out 
plainly,  and  to  follow  our  principles  to  their  legitimate  re- 
sults. And,  sometimes,  my  dear  pedobaptist  reader,  it  is 
urged,  because  it  is  thought  that  vou  have  not  discrimin- 
ation  enough  to  distinguish  between  baptism  and  the  Bap- 
tists, and  because  it  is  hoped  that  the  reply  to  it  will  so 
excite  your  resentment — on  the  plea  that  you  are  "un- 
churched"— as  to  make  your  passions  overwhelm  your 
reason,  your  judgment  and  your  conscience.  And  those 
who  ply  you  thus,  do  so  with  much  confidence, — their 
success  with  others,  and  with  you  too,  perhaps,  in  times 
past,  encouraging  them  to  hope  that  a  like  success  will 


GENERAL    OBJECTIONS.  189 

attend  their  present  effort.  But  is  not  this  attempt  to 
change  the  issue  an  acknowledgment  of  conscious  weak- 
ness  ?  If  they  have  arguments  to  urge  against  the  pro- 
position that  immersion  is  the  only  Christian  baptism, 
why  attempt  to  divert  attention  to  something  foreign  to 
the  subject  in  Baptist  polity  and  Baptist  practice  ?  A 
reader  of  discrimination  will  not  fail  to  see  the  unworthy 
appeal  that  is  made  to  him,  and  one  of  piety  will  not 
refuse  to  obey  God's  command  because,  in  his  opinion, 
some  of  those  who  have  obeyed  that  same  command  are 
not  right  and  estimable  in  everything  else.  We  might 
have  sternly  refused  to  entertain  this  objection  at  all,  on 
the  ground  that  it  has  no  relevancy  to  the  subject 
under  discussion ;  but  being  aware  of  the  motives  by 
which  it  is  sometimes  urged,  and  being  desirous  to  make 
some  discriminations,  on  this  very  point,  for  the  benefit  of 
the  honest  and  the  candid,  we  thought  best  to  entertain  it. 
Whether  or  not  we  have  made  a  successful  defence  of 
the  Baptists,  we  leave  to  the  reader  to  decide.  Of  two 
things,  however,  we  are  most  certain  :  (1,)  that  we  have 
not  designed  to  be  offensive  to  any,  eve^the  most  hum- 
ble of  our  brethren  of  other  denominations,  in  what  we 
have  said  ;  and  (2,)  that  we  have  no  apology  to  make 
to  any,  even  the  most  exalted,  for  what  we  have  said. 

Like  this,  the  next  objection  is  leveled  more  at  the 
Baptists  than  at  the  proposition  that  immersion  is  the 
only  scriptural  baptism. 

Obj.  7.  "  Though  we  should  be  constrained  to  grant 
that  the  argument  seems  to  be  in  favor  of  immersion, 
there  are  serious  consequences  connected  with  the  ad- 


190  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

mission  which  would,  after  all,  make  us  hesitate,  under 
the  apprehension  that  there  is,  somewhere,  a  flaw  in  the 
reasoning.  There  is  your  close  communion  for  instance ; 
we  cannot  accept  immersion  as  alone  baptism  without 
accepting  it  also.  And  we  cannot  perceive  that  it  is 
consistent  with  other  parts  of  the  Scriptures,  to  say- 
nothing  of  modesty  for  you  to  un christianize  all  the  rest 
of  the  Christian  world,  and  say  to  them :  '  Stand  aside, 
for  we  are  more  holy  than  you.'  We  must  hesitate  a 
long  time  before  Ave  can  accept  anything  which  involves 
a  declaration  of  non-fellowship  for  all  the  rest  of  the 
Christian  world,  and  a  profession  of  the  belief  that  we 
are  better  than  others  of  Christ's  disciples  who  are  not 
of  our  communion.  We  cannot  consent  to  unite  in  the 
proclamation  that  the  Baptists  are  the  only  people  of 
God."  Now,  to  this  T  reply  that  there  is  nothing  more 
easy  than  to  show,  and  that,  too,  upon  your  own  prin- 
ciples, that  the  Baptists  are  right  in  their  restricted  com- 
munion. You  do  them,  unwittingly,  injustice,  when  you 
believe  that  they  assume  to  themselves  a  superiority  to 
the  res!  of  the  ^iristian  world.  They  do  not  profess  to 
believe  that  they  are  the  only  people  of  God.  This  can 
be  made,  very  easily,  to  appear,  if  you  will  attend  to  the 
following  discriminations:  There  are  three  kinds  of 
fellowship — ministerial  fellowship,  Christian  fellowship, 
md  church  fellowship. 

1.  Do  you  find  that  Baptist  ministers  are  behind  your 
own  in  the  manifestation  and  expression  of  ministerial 
fellowship?  Do  they  not  preach  in  your  pulpits,  when 
invited  ?     Do  you  find  them  slow  to  recognize  the  pres- 


GENERAL    OBJECTIONS.  191 

ence  of  your  own  ministers  in  their  congregations  ? 
Point  me  to  the  instance  in  which  we  have  overlooked 
your  ministers  when  present  in  our  congregations,  and 
we  will  engage  to  cite,  at  least,  as  many  instances  in 
which  they  have  overlooked  us.  We  appeal  to  you  to 
decide  if  you  find  a  peculiar  reluctance  in  our  ministers 
to  unite  with  yours  in  revivals,  even  at  your  own  houses 
of  worship,  and  if  you  find  them  more  disposed  to  thwart 
your  plans  of  conducting  the  revival  than  pedobaptist 
ministers  who  differ  from  you  in  views  of  doctrine  ?  In 
all  the  ways  in  which  ministerial  fellowship  can  be  ex- 
hibited, you  do  not  find  our  ministers  behind  yours. 

2.  Do  you  find  our  members  more  backward  than 
yours  in  the  manifestation  of  Christian  fellowship?  Do 
you  perceive  in  them  any  reluctance  to  converse  witli 
you  about  your  spiritual  interests,  and  to  tell  you  the 
dealings  of  the  Lord  with  their  own  souls  ?  Do  Baptists 
decline  to  enter  into  social  religious  intercourse  with 
you?  Do  they  refuse  to  constitute  a  part  of  your  wor- 
shipping assemblies;  anjd  do  you  hear  that  their  minis- 
ters warn  them  not  to  attend  your  congregations,  from 
a  fear  or  the  influence  you  may  exert  upon  them,  or  for 
any  other  reason  \  So  strong  is  a  Baptist's  conviction 
of  the  correctness  of  his  own  opinion,  and,  I  will  add,  so 
great  is  his  Christian  confidence  in  you,  that  he  does  not 
hesitate  to  attend  your  worshipping  assemblies,  and 
neither  he  nor  his  pastor  fears  that  he  will  either  be 
killed  or  taken  a  prisoner.  When  present  with  you  Ho 
you  find  him  an  uncourteous  hearer,  and  slow  to  take, 
when  requested,  the  same  part  in  your  meetings  which 


192  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

he  is  accustomed  to  take  in  his  own  ?  Do  you  find  him, 
as  a  hearer,  intolerant,  captious  and  quick  to  be  offended  ] 
Is  it  his  custom  to  become  angry  whenever  your  minis- 
ter touches  upon  denominational  sentiments  in  a  cour- 
teous way  ?  On  the  contrary,  do  you  not  rind  that  when 
your  minister  preaches,  even  ou  the  subject  of  baptism, 
and  discusses  it  without  personalities,  he  listens  calmly 
and  respectfully  ?  The  reason  is,  that  knowing  the 
points  of  difference  between  you  and  him,  he  has  come 
prepared  to  "prove  all  things,  and  to  hold  fast  that 
which  is  good,"  and  he  has  no  doubt  that  he  has,  in  his 
own  mind,  answered  every  argument  advanced.  None 
but  those  who  feel  that  they  have  been  driven  into  a 
corner,  and  have  nothing  to  say  in  reply,  get  angry  ami 
act  uncou rteously  ;  why,  then,  should  he?  In  every 
way  in  which  you  can  possibly  show  Christian  fellowship 
for  us,  we  show  Christian  fellowship  for  you. 

3.  There  remains,  therefore,  only  church  fellowship; 
and  one  of  the  ways  in  which  this  is  exhibited  is  by  par- 
taking, together,  the  communion  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 
In  this,  and  in  this  alone,  is  involved  this  practice  of  re- 
stricted communion.  The  Lord's  Supper  is  a  church 
ordinance  ;  to  be  partaken  of  only  by  those  who  have 
been  baptized  and  been  united  to  the  church.  Now,  let 
it  be  premised  that,  by  universal  consent,  all  evangelical 
denominations,  your  own  among  the  Test,  maintain  that 
baptism  is  a  prerequisite,  as  a  qualification,  to  admission 
to  the  Lord's  table.  This  proposition  we  need  not  stop 
to  prove,  since  all  grant  it.  Suppose,  then,  I  had  been, 
for  a  number  of  months,  in  possession  of  a  hope,  and 


CtEneral  objections.  193 

had  given  you  satisfactory  evidence  of  the  genuineness 
of  my  faith,  but  had  not  yet  been  baptized  and  admitted 
to  the  church.  You  had  recognized  me,  however,  as  a 
Christian,  we  had  gone  together  to  the  house  of  God, 
and  you  had  frequently  called  upon  me  to  lead  in  prayer 
in  the  public  congregation,  and  even  permitted  me  to 
exhort  sinners  to  flee  from  the  wrath  to  come.  Sup- 
pose, then,  that  under  these  circumstances,  your  com- 
munion season  should  roll  around,  and,  when  you  invite 
persons  to  participate,  I  should  present  myself  among 
the  rest ;  would  you  permit  me  to  partake  \  Suppose, 
then,  I  should  throw  myself  into  an  attitude,  and  say, 
indignantly  :  "  You  can  recognize  me  as  a  Christian,  in 
private  and  in  public  ;  can  engage  with  me  in  Christian 
conversation,  in  prayer,  and  in  exhortation  ;  but  as  soon 
as  you  spread  the  table  of  the  Lord,  you  say  to  me, 
stand  aside,  we  are  more  holy  than  thou.  If  I  am  a  dis- 
ciple of  Christ,  how7  dare  you  exclude  me  from  his  table  ? 
And  if  you  cannot  commune  with  me  on  earth,  how  can 
you  commune  with  me  in  heaven  V3  My  dear  pedobap- 
tist  reader,  what  would  you  say  to  me?  Your  answer 
to  me  will  be  my  answer  to  you.  when  our  relative  posi- 
tions are  changed.  Your  reply  to  me  would  be  :  "  We 
do  not  mean  to  say  that  you  are  not  a  Christian,  or  that 
we  are  more  holy  than  you.  You  have  not  been  bap- 
tized, and  that  is  the  only  reason  why  we  do  not  adm; 
you,  for  baptism  is  an  indispensable  prerequisite  to  com- 
munion. Submit  to  the  initiating  ordinance,  and  we 
will  gladly  admit  you  to  the  other.     Because  it  is  the 

Lord's  table  is  the  very  reason  why  we  decline  to  receive 
13 


194  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

you,  for  we  have  no  right  to  alter  the  terms  of  admission 
which  he  has  prescribed.  And  we  do  not  expect  to 
commune  with  you  at  the  Lord's  table  in  heaven,  be- 
cause the  Lord's  table  will  not  be  spread  in  heaven. 
We  hold  Christian  and  spiritual  communion  with  you 
here,  and  we  expect  to  hold  with  you  none  other  than 
Christian  and  spiritual  communion  in  heaven."  If,  after 
this,  I  should  pronounce  you  bigoted,  inconsistent  and 
exclusive,  all  the  rest  of  the  world,  who  understood  the 
subject,  would  pronounce  you  honest,  and  faithful,  and 
consistent.  If  the  Baptists  are  wrong,  it  is  because  they 
err  in  one  of  two  things  :  either  in  believing  that  bap- 
tism is  a  prerequisite  to  the  communion,  or  that  nothing 
else  is  baptism  bur  believer's  immersion.  In  the  first 
you  all  unanimously  grant  that  they  do  not  err.  And 
they  do  most  conscientiously  believe  that  nothing  else  i> 
baptism  but  immersion.  If  baptism  is  a  prerequisite, 
and  we  believe  that  nothing  but  immersion  is  baptism, 
how  can  we  admit  those  who  have  been  sprinkled  in 
infancy  or  even  in  adult  age  ;  It  brings  us  back,  then, 
to  the  question,  what  is  Christian  baptism  I  And  this, 
you  perceive,  demands  argument  and  not  denunciation. 
It  devolves  upon  you,  not  lo  call  us  hard  names,  but  to 
}>i  ove  to  us  that  something  else  than  immersion  is  baptism. 
And  we  ask  you.  as  a  candid  man,  if  the  preceding  part 
of  tins  book  has  not  convinced  you  of  your  utter  inability 
to  do  ibis  .'  The  dishonest  and.  the  partizan  will  con- 
tinue to  misrepresent  this  subject  of  "close  communion," 
but  the  candid  are  always  satisfied,  so  soon  as  they  un- 
derstand the  principle  upon  which  it  is  based. 


GENERAL    OBJECTIONS.  195 

Obj.  8.  "  The  Baptists  make  immersion  a  saving  ordi- 
nance." What  do  you  mean  by  this  ?  Is  it  your  asser- 
tion that  we  believe  immersion  will  secure  the  salvation 
of  all  those  to  whom  it  is  administered  ?  Our  practices, 
with  which  no  one  is  better  acquainted  than  you,  ought 
to  have  protected  us  from  such  a  charge.  If  we  believed 
so,  we  should  be  very  sure  to  baptize  all  our  children  in 
infancy,  and  you  know,  we  never  administer  the  ordi- 
nance to  any  but  those  who  relate  to  us  an  experience 
of  grace,  and  thus  give  to  us  creditable  evidence  that 
they  are  already  saved.  So  far  from  considering  that 
the  ordinance  will  subserve  his  spiritual  interests,  we 
believe  it  will  be  essentially  hurtful  to  one  who  is  in  a 
state  of  nature,  and,  therefore,  we  scrupulously  refrain 
from  administering  it  to  those  who  do  not  give  us  satis- 
factory reasons  to  believe  that  they  have  experienced 
the  grace  of  God  in  their  hearts.  The  ordinance  is  sig- 
nificant only  to  those  who  use  it  as  a  means  of  professing 
a  belief  that  they  hare  been  spiritually  united  to  Christ ; 
and  to  them  it  is  useful,  not  because  of  any  supernatural 
influence  connected  with  it,  but  because  it  affords  them 
the  answer  of  a  good  conscience,  and  prepares  them  for 
a  visible  connection  with  Christ's  people. 

So  far  from  elevating  it  into  a  saving  ordinance,  we 
lay  much  less  stress  upon  it  than  do  you  or  any  of  the 
rest  of  our  opponents.  "  But  do  you  not  maintain  that 
there  is  no  salvation  without  immersion  ?"  No ;  we  are 
assured  that  the  thief  on  the  cross  obtained  eternal  life  ; 
and  we  have  no  doubt  that  all  of  our  children,  who  die 
in  their  infancy  are  saved.     And  yet  there  is  a  sense  in 


196  BAPTISM    rfr   ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

which  baptism  is  essential  to  salvation :  Baptism  is 
essential  to  obedience,  and  obedience  is  essential  to  sal- 
vation. All  those  who  deliberately  refuse  to  be  im- 
mersed, though  they  are  convinced  that  God  commands 
it,  can  have  no  reason  to  expect  eternal  life ;  and  this, 
not  because  there  is  any  thing  in  the  mere  watery  rite 
which  is  efficacious  m  securing  salvation,  but  because 
that  principle  in  their  hearts,  which  prompts  them  to 
disobey  God,  utterly  disqualifies  them  for  a  place  at  his 
right  hand. 

There  are  many  who  are  fully  convinced  that  God 
commands  them  to  be  immersed,  who  yet  hesitate,  and 
refuse  to  obey,  because  they  find  it  impossible  to  over- 
come the  opposition  from  family  ties,  from  public  opinion, 
and  from  fear  of  the  charge  of  apostacy.  Let  such  bear 
in  mind  the,  to  them,  solemn  declaration  of  Christ: 
"  If  any  man  come  to  me  and  hate  not  his  father,  and 
mother,  and  wife,  and  children,  and  brethren,  and  sisters, 
yea,  and  his  own  life,  also,  he  cannot  be  my  disciple," 
(Luke  xiv.  26 ;)  and  "  Whosoever,  therefore,  shall  be 
ashamed  of  me,  and  of  my  words,  in  this  adulterous  and 
sinful  generation,  of  him  also  shall  the  Son  of  Man  be 
ashamed,  when  he  cometh  in  the  glory  of  his  Father, 
with  the  holy  angels,"  (Mark  viii.  38.)  It  is  the  custom 
of  such  to  quiet  their  consciences  by  saying  that  baptism 
is  not  essential  to  sanation ;  but  let  them  bear  in  mind 
that  a  disobedience  to  the  least  of  God's  laws,  deliber- 
ately persisted  in,  is  as  sure  to  secure  the  destruction  of 
the  soul,  as  though  they  attempted  rebelliously  to  drag 
God  down  from  his  throne.     To  submit  to  immersion  in 


GENERAL    OBJECTIONS.  197 

water  is,  comparatively,  a  small  thing,  and  there  is 
nothing  in  the  nature  of  things  which  makes  it  either 
right  or  wrong;  but  \vl  en  it  has  connected  with  it  God's 
command,  it  becomes  a  test  of  our  submission  to  God's 
authority  ;  and  the  feeling  within  us  which  prompts  us 
to  obey,  is  as  necessary  a  qualification  for  eternal  life,  as 
that  which  prompts  us  to  believe  in  Christ,  and  "  to  do 
justly,  love  mercy,  and  walk  humbly  Avith  God."  Our 
progenitors  in  the  garden  of  Eden,  may  have  reasoned 
that  there  is  no  immorality  attached  to  the  mere  pluck- 
ing fruit  from  a  tree  in  which  no  others  possessed  owner- 
ship, and  that  to  do  so  was  a  very  small  matter.  In  the 
nature  of  things  it  was  a  very  small  matter ;  but  when 
God  had  placed  a  prohibition  upon  the  act,  a  regard  to 
it  was  as  much  a  test  of  their  submission  to  God's  au- 
thority, as  to  the  command  not  to  blaspheme  his  name. 
When,  therefore,  they  reached  forth  the  hand  and 
plucked  the  fruit,  that  simple  act,  indifferent  as  it  was 
under  other  circumstances,  brought  death  into  the  world 
and  all  our  woe.  Why  ?  iNot  because  there  was  any 
thing  in  the  act  itself  which  could  produce  such  appal- 
ling results,  but  because  it  was  a  deliberate  disobedience 
of  God's  commandment.  My  dear  reader,  you  who  are 
in  the  habit  of  quieting  yor  conscience  by  the  consider- 
ation that  baptism  is  not  essential  to  salvation,  I  beg  you 
to  ponder  these  things. 


BAPTISM  IN  ITS  MODE  AND  SUBJECTS, 


PART  n. 


THE    SUBJECTS    OP    BAPTISM. 

Unscriptural  views  of  the  nature  and  constitution 
of  "  the  church,"  and  of  the  saving  efficacy  of  baptism, 
gave  origin  to  the  practice  of  administering  the  ordinance 
to  infants.  Had  professing  Christians  always  understood 
and  received  the  teachings  of  the  New  Testament  in 
regard  to  the  church — that  it  is  a  company  of  believers 
called  out  of  the  world,  and  baptized,  upon  a  profession 
of  their  faith,  and  associated  together  to  maintain  the 
worship  of  God  and  the  ordinances  of  Christ — had  they 
never  entertained  the  superstitious  belief  that  there  is  a 
mystical  efficacy  in  baptism,  sufficient  to  remove  the 
taint  of  original  sin,  we  should  never  have  heard  of  the 
baptism  and  church-membership  of  unconscious  babes. 

For  fifteen  hundred  years,  however,  infant  baptism 


200  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

has  existed  in  the  corrupt  Romish  apostacy,  and  in  that 
which  prepared  the  way  for  it ;  and  all  "  the  churches " 
in  Europe,  which  can  trace  their  origin  to  Rome,  whether 
connected  with  the  state  or  otherwise,  have  maintained 
it  during  all  their  existence.  In  this  country,  it  is  found, 
uniformly,  in  connection  with  those  great  ecclesiastical 
organizations  which,  like  the  Papacy,  have  departed  in 
their  constitution  from  the  simplicity  of  the  Gospel ; 
and  it  rises  in  the  scale  of  importance  in  the  estimation 
of  the  sects,  in  proportion  as  they  -themselves  approxi- 
mate in  form  to  the  Romish  Hierarchy.  In  infant  bap- 
tism, the  Papacy  found  its  origin,  and  by  infant  bap- 
tism it  is  sustained  and  perpetuated.  Whatever  may 
be  the  modifications  and  the  changes  which  u  the 
mystery  of  iniquity"  may  undergo,  it  can  never  be 
destroyed  utterly,  in  name  and  in  principle,  so  long  as 
infant  baptism,  u  the  main  pillar  and  ground"  of  it,  is  in 
existence. 

Those  who  have  held  Baptist  sentiments,  under  what- 
ever names  they  have  passed,  from  the  days  of  Ter- 
tullian  to  the  present  time,  have  always  protested  against 
it,  and  waged  an  uncompromising  warfare  in  opposition, 
even  though  it  subjected  them  in  ancient  times  to  the 
fagot  and  the  stake,  and  at  the  present  time  to  imprison- 
ments and  confiscations  in  some  countries,  and  every- 
where to  the  hatred  and  persecution  of  all  the  sects 
combined. 

Infant  baptism  finds  no  warrant  in  God's  word.  No 
precept  enjoins  it — no  inspired  example  sanctions  it,  and 
no  analogy  suggests  it.     All  the  so-called  analogies  that 


NO     PRECEPT    IN    THE    SCRIPTURES.  201 

are  used  in  the  arguments  of  its  defenders,  are  rather 
suggested  by  it,  than  it  by  them,  and  owe  their  existence 
to  the  exigencies  of  the  defence.  The  very  genius  of 
Christianity,  and  the  best  interests  of  the  church  and  the 
world,  utterly-repudiate  it,  It  has  never  been  the  author 
or  occasion  of  any  good.  Its  influence  has  been  evil  and 
only  evil,  and  that  continually.  Do  you  say  these  are 
very  strong  assertions.  If  I  tail  to  prove  them  to  be 
true,  it  will  not  be  from  a  lack  of  means  at  my  disposal. 
The  Scriptures  furnish,  in  precept  and  example,  no 
baptism  but  that  of  a  believer,  upon  a  profession  of  his 
faith  in  Christ.  To  the  proof  of  this  proposition,  Part 
II.  of  this  argument  is  devoted. 


CHAPTER  I. 

NO    PRECEPT    IN    THE    SCRIPTURES    FOR    THE    BAPTISM    OF 
ANY    OTHERS    THAN    BELIEVERS. 

Section  I. —  The  Commission. 

1.  Some  pedobaptists  profess  to  find,  in  Christ's  com- 
mission, authority  for  the  baptism  of  infants.  Let  us 
see  what  foundation  it  furnishes  for  their  assertion.  This 
was  given*o  the  disciples  immediately  before  the  Master 
was  takes  up  out  of  their  sight,  and  constituted  at  once 
their  authority  and  their  guide  in  all  their  operations,  as 


202  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

his  ambassadors  and  ministers.  From  this  they  learned 
to  whom  they  were  sent,  what  message  they  were  to 
deliver,  whom  they  were  to  accept  as  Christ's  followers, 
how  they  were  to  introduce  them  into  the  ranks  of 
Christ's  visible  people,  and  to  what  training  they  were 
to  subject  them,  after  their  admission  into  the  school  of 
Christ.  Now,  this  commission  is  as  silent  as  the  grave 
in  reference  to  the  baptism  of  infants.  Nay ;  by  its 
silence,  it  as  effectually  bars  them  out,  as  if  they  had 
been  excluded  by  name.  "  Go  ye  into  all  the  world,  and 
preach  the  Gospel  to  every  creature.  He  that  believeth 
and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved;  but  he  that  believeth 
not  shall  be  damned,"  Mark  xvi.  15. 

1st.  They  were  to  preach  the  Gospel  to  every  crea- 
ture. Surely,  not  to  infants  !  Christ  did  not  command 
his  ministers  to  collect  unconscious  babes  in  congrega- 
tions, and  gravely  preach  to  them  that  they  are  lost 
sinners,  and  that,  except  they  repent  and  believe  in 
Him,  they  shall  perish  in  their  sins.  If  so,  pedobaptist 
ministers  do  not  obey  the  injunction,  for  we  never  hear 
that  they  address  themselves  to  this  class  of  human 
beings. 

2d.  They  that  believed  were  to  be  baptized  ;  and  no 
authority  is  here  given  for  the  administration  of  the 
ordinance  to  any  others.  Surely  there  never  was  an 
infant  that  possessed  faith  in  Christ.  Did  ever  an  un- 
conscious babe,  "mewling  and  puking  in  its  nurse's 
arms,"  repent  of  sin,  pray  God  for  forgiverifss,  and  fly 
for  refuge  to  the  crucified  Saviour }  Have  any  pedo- 
baptist ministers,  from  the  time  that  the  first  infant  was 


NO    PRECEPT    IN    THE    SCRIPTURES.  203 

baptized  to  the  present,  had  the  great  question  pro- 
pounded to  them,  by  human  beings  of  this  class : 
"  What  shall  I  do  to  be  saved  V  Has  any  one  been 
baptized  on  the  ground  that  it  gives  evidence  of  possess- 
ing evangelical  faith  ]  Have  infants  ever  been  the  sub- 
jects  of  revivals,  from  the  day  of  Petecost  to  the  present, 
and  have  we  ever  heard  them  giving  a  reason  of  the 
hope  within  them,  with  meekness  and  fear  ?  Only  those 
to  whom  the  Gospel  could  be  preached,  and  who  could 
obtain  evangelical  faith  b}~  hearing  the  Gospel,  were  in- 
cluded in  this  commission,  and  were  to  be  baptized ; 
but  infants  cannot  hear  and  understand  the  Gospel,  and 
cannot  obtain  evangelical  faith,  by  a  belief  of  it ;  there- 
fore, infants  are  not  included  in  the  commission,  and  are, 
consequently,  not  to  be  baptized  under  its  authority. 

Again  :  "  Go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations, 
(piatheteusate .  panta  ta  ethne,)  baptizing  them  (bapti- 
zontes  autous)  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son, 
and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  teaching  them  (didaskontes 
autous)  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have  com- 
manded you,"  (fee,  Matt,  xxviii.  19,  20. 

1.  Make  disciples  among  all  nations.  All  agree  that 
itiatheteusate  should  be  translated  make  disciples  or  dis- 
ciple,  and  that  didaskontes  is  properly  translated  teach- 
in;/.  Now,  who  are  disciples,  and  how  are  they  made  ? 
Christ's  own  word  is  an  inspired  dictionary,  that  fur- 
nishes us  a  definition  of  the  term  disciple:  "If  any 
man  come  t<>  me  and  hate  not  his  father,  and  mother, 
and  wife,  and  children,  and  brethren,  and  sisters,  yea, 
and  his  own  Hfe  also,  he  cannot  he  my  disciple  (mathe* 


204  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

tes.)  And  whosoever  doth  not  bear  his  cross  and  come 
after  me,  cannot  be  my  disciple,"  (r/iathetes,)  Luke  xiv. 
26,  27.  A  disciple,  then,  is  one  who  b^ars  his  cross  and 
follows  Christ.  Can  this  be  predicted  of  an  infant  ? 
How  were  those  disciples  to  be  made  ? — by  baptism  ? 
Does  the  sprinkling  or  pouring  of  a  little  water  upon 
any  one,  in  the  name  of  the  Trinity,  cause  him  to  prefer 
Christ  to  his  own  life,  and  make  him  willing  to  endure 
the  cross  and  shame  ?  Do  any,  besides  Papists,  attach 
such  efficacy  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism  ?  And  if  bap- 
tism cannot  change  the  heart  of  an  adult,  can  it  produce 
this  effect  upon  a  puling  babe  I  Does  any  one  say — 
disregarding  the  assertion  of  the  apostle,  that  "  we  are 
all,  by  nature,  children  of  wrath" — does  any  one  say 
that  infants  are  already  disciples,  because  they  are  holy, 
and  prepared,  without  change,  for  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  {  Then,  I  say,  this  assertion  itself  places  infants 
out  of  the  commission.  The  apostles  were  instructed  to 
make  disciples ;  but,  according  to  the  assertion,  infants 
were  already  disciples  ;  they  were  not  the  materials, 
therefore,  out  of  which  they  were  to  form  disciples,  and, 
consequently,  they  were  not  included  nor  provided  for 
in  the  commission.  But  how  were  the  apostles  to 
make  disciples  2  Mark  tells  us,  by  preaching  the  Gos- 
pel to  the  people.  But  infants  never  had  the  Gospel 
addressed  to  them,  therefore,  infants  were  never  made 
disciples  of. 

If  they  are  disciples  by  nature,  then,  by  nature  and 
in  an  infantile  state,  they  prefer  Christ  to  their  own  lives, 
and  deny  themselves  and  take  up 'their  cross  !     If  it  be 


NO  PRECEPT  IN  THE  SCRIPTURES.        205 

said,  the  meaning  is  that  they  are  possessed  of  such 
characters  by  nature,  that  as  soon  as  they  can  act  at  all 
they  will  take  up  their  cross  and  follow  Christ — I  an- 
swer :  (1.)  This  is  to  confess  that  they  are  not  yet  dis- 
ciples, but  only  prepared  to  become  so  as  soon  as  they  are 
able,  i.  e.,  as  soon  as  they  become  old  enough  to  hear, 
understand,  believe,  and  obey  the  Gospel ;  and  this  is  to 
give  up  the  argument. 

2.  If  it  be  asserted  that  infants  are  naturally  disciples, 
and  that  they  manifest  that  to  be  their  state  progress- 
ively, as  their  faculties  unfold,  I  answer,  this  is  to  con- 
tradict universal  observation  and  experience.  Never  yet 
has  the  individual  been  seen  by  you,  who  was  holy  from 
his  birth  There  never  was  the  "natural  man'1  that 
"  discerned  the  things  of  the  Spirit,"  and  no  man  can 
say  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ  but  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 

3.  Do  my  Methodist  opponents  say  that  infants  are 
all,  by  nature,  disciples,  but  as  they  grow  up  they  fall 
from  grace?  If  so,  I  need  do  no  more  in  reply,  in  ad- 
dition to  what  I  have  said  above,  than  to  turn  them  over 
to  my  Presbyterian  and  other  Calvinistic  opponents. 
Indeed,  so  contradictory  are  the  grounds  upon  which  in- 
fant baptism  is  sustained,  that  there  is  no  argument  ad- 
vanced by  one  that  is  not  related  by  others  of  the  sects 
that  practice  it. 

4.  Is  it  said  that  infants  are  disciples,  because  they 
are  entered,  by  their  parents,  into  the  school  of  Christ 
to  be  taught  by  him  ?  I  answer  that  this  is  to  offer 
them  to  Christ  to  be  accepted  by  him  when  they  shall 
be  qualified,  by  age,  to  become  disciples,  which  is  the 


206  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

same  as  to  say  that  they  are  not  such  as  yet.  You  may 
promise  a  teacher  your  children  as  pupils,  when  they 
grow  old  enough ;  but  they  do  not  become  pupils,  in 
fact,  until  they  arrive  at  the  suitable  age  ;  so  you  may  in 
your  prayers,  as  you  ought,  offer  your  infants  to  Christ 
as  his  disciples,  but  they  can  never  become  so,  in  fact,, 
until  they  are  old  enough  to  repent,  to  believe  the  Gos- 
pel, and  to  take  up  their  cross  and  follow  Christ.  "But 
is  not  a  child,  dying  in  infancy,  received  into  the  king- 
dom of  heaven  ?"  I  answer,  yes  ;  but  an  infant  fit  for 
heaven,  and  an  infant  a  disciple  of  Christ,  are  two  very 
different  propositions,  The  former  has  happened  in  in- 
numerable instances,  but  the  latter  never.  But  more  of 
this  anon. 

We  return  whence  we  started.  All  those  who  could 
be  discipled  were  included  in  the  commission  given  to 
the  apostles  ;  but  infants  cannot  be  discipled  ;  therefore, 
infant  were  not  included  in  the  commission  given  to  the 
apostles. 

2.  The  apostles  were  instructed  to  baptize  "  them  " — 
whom  ?  All  nations.  Whether  they  became  disciples 
or  not  ?     I  answer  : 

1st.  In  that  case  the  Saviour  would  have  used  the 
neuter  pronoun  auta,  corresponding  to  the  neuter  noun 
ethne,  for  which  it  stands  ;  but  he  used  the  masculine 
pronoun  autous — thus  showing  \hat  he  designed  them 
to  baptize  those  who  had  first  been  discipled. 

2d.  If  "them'1  means  all  nations,  then  we  have  a 
warrant  for  baptizing  all  adults  also,  as  well  as  infants, 
if  we  can  accomplish  it  by  force,  by  persuasion,  or  by 


NO    PRECEPT    IN    THE    SCRIPTURES.  207 

fraud.  And  why  would  it  not  be  just  as  excusable  to 
take  the  same  advantage  of  adults  that  you  take  of  in- 
fants ? 

According  to  the  commission,  the  apostles  were  to 
make  disciples  among  all  nations  only  by  preaching  to 
the  people  a  crucified  Saviour;  but  the  Gospel  cannot 
be  preached  to  infants ;  therefore,  infants,  as  infants, 
were  not  included  among  those  to  whom  the  apostles 
were  sent,  and  cannot  be  discipled.  Only  those,  who 
could  be  discipled,  were  to  be  baptized;  but  infants 
could  not  be  discipled  ;  therefore,  infants  were  not  to  be 
baptized. 

3d.  Those  who  were  competent  to  be  baptized  were 
competent  k>  be  taught  all  things  which  Christ  had  com- 
manded ;  but  infants  were  not  competent  to  receive  such 
instruction  ;  therefore,  infants  were  not  competent  to  be 
baptized.  Torture  the  commission  as  you  may,  its  in- 
variable testimony  will  be,  "  Infant  baptism  is  not  to  be 
found  in  me."  But  here  it  is  objected  :  1.  "  May  not 
the  disciples,  as  Jews,  have  understood  Christ  according 
to  what  they  knew  of  Jewish  Proselyte  Baptism  ?  By 
that,  you  know,  when  the  parent  was  introduced  into 
the  Jewish  community,  the  children  were  also.  May 
not  the  Saviour,  then,  have  meant :  '  Go  ye,  therefore 
and  'proselyte  or  disciple  all  nations,  and  admit  the  pros- 
elytes into  the  church  as  the  Jews  did  their  proselytes 
into  their  communion?'"  To  this  I  answer:  1.  Jew 
ish  Proselyte  Baptism  did  not  exist  in  the  time  of  Christ. 
No  mention  is  made  of  it  in  the  Old  Testament  or  the 
New,  nor  does  Josephus,  the  antiquarian  of  the  Jews, 


208  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

who  wrote  after  the  ascension  of  Christ,  refer  to  it. 
Your  best  scholars  have  given  this  up,  and  only  those 
now  who  have  a  smattering  of  learning,  or  none  at  all, 
maintain  that  proselyte  baptism  had  existed  before  the 
time  of  Christ.  "  Xeander,  in  his  lectures,  says  :  '  Since 
the  elaborate  work  of  Schneekenburger  has  appeared,  no 
one  will  pretend  that  he  can  prove  the  existence  of  a 
proselyte  baptism  in  the  time  of  Christ.' " 

2d.  If  it  did  exist  at  the  time  of  Christ,  it  cannot  sus- 
tain your  argument  in  its  whole  extent.  Jewish  Prose- 
lyte Baptism  was  administered  to  the  family,  old  and 
young,  on  their  admission  into  the  community;  but 
none  of  their  descendants  afterwards  were  baptized. 

3d.  The  Jewish  proselyte  immersed  himself. 

4th.  Finally,  upon  the  supposition  of  its  existence,  it 
refutes  your  view  of  the  "mode  of  baptism."  Jewish 
Proselyte  Baptism  was  invariably  Jewish  proselyte  im- 
mersion. It  is  given  up  now,  by  the  learned  and  candid 
writers  on  your  side,  that  Jewish  Proselyte  Baptism  did 
not  exist  until  about  the  seventh  century  after  Christ. 

Objection  2.  ':  But  we  must  put  ourselves  into  the 
position  of  the  disciples  as  Jews,  in  order  fully  to  under- 
stand the  case.  They  had  been  accustomed  to  see  cir- 
cumcision administered  to  children  as  well  as  to  parents. 
Suppose  Christ  had  said  :  '  Go  proselyte  or  discijile,  and 
circumcise  all  nations,'  would  they  not,  in  that  case,  have 
administered  the  rite  to  children  also  V  (Dr.  "Woods.) 
To  this  I  answer  : 

1st.  Christ  did  not  say  so,  and,  therefore,  you  have  no 
right  to  argue  from  such  a  supposed  case. 


NO    .PRECEPT    IN    THE    SCRIPTURES.  209 

2d.  If  Christ  had  used  that  form  of  expression,  the 
word- "  circumcise,"  I  grant,  would  have  suggested  in- 
fants as  subjects  of  the  rite.  The  disciples  had  always 
seen  the  rite  administered  to  infants,  and  if  they  had  not 
been  excepted,  they  would,  very  likely,  have  circumcised 
infants  as  well  as  adults.  In  like  manner,  and  on  the 
very  same  principles,  the  word  baptize,  in  the  form  of 
expression  that  Christ  did  use,  limited  the  commission, 
in  their  view,  to  believing-  adults;  for  they  had  never 
seen  the  ordinance  of  baptism  administered  to  any  others. 
John  the  Baptist,  and  they  themselves,  doubtless,  had 
never  baptized  any  but  those  who  were  old  enough  to 
repent  and  confess  their  sins. 

Obj.  3.  "If  infants  are  not  provided  for  in  the  com- 
mission, then  it  must  follow  that  they  cannot  be  saved." 
"  If  infants  must  not  be  baptized  because  they  lack  faith, 
for  the  same  reason  they  cannot  be  saved  ;  for  while  it 
is  said,  '  He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be 
saved,'  it  is  also  added,  'He  that  believeth  not  shall  be 
damned.'  But  infants  are  not  excluded  from  salvation, 
because  they  lack  faith,  which  is  necessary  to  adults; 
so  neither  are  they  to  be  excluded  from  baptism  because 
they  are  incapable  of  faith."   Summers,  p.  46. 

1st.  Dr.  Summers,  in  the  above  paragraph,  grants, 
though  he  does  not  seem  to  know  it,  that  infants  are  not 
included  in  the  commission  ;  for  he  insists  that,  dying  in 
infancy,  they  are  saved  without  faith.  But  the  commis- 
sion asserts  that  all  those  included  in  it  must  be  damned 
unless  they  believe.     If,  therefore,  those  dying  in  infancy 

are  saved  without  faith,  it  must  be  (all  parts  of  God's 
14 


210  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

word  being  true,)  because  the  commission  does  not  refer 
to  them,  and  because  they  are  provided  for  in  some 
other  way ;  but  Dr.  Summers  says,  those  dying  in  in- 
fancy without  faith  are  saved ;  therefore,  infants  are  not 
included  in  the  commission,  and  are  saved  by  some 
other  provision  which  God  has  made. 

2d.  If  he  designed  to  include  them  in  the  commission, 
we  insist  that  he  should  not  travel  out  of  the  record- 
He  has  no  right  to  make  one  part  of  the  Scriptures  con- 
tradict another,  and  then  choose  which  one  of  the  con- 
flicting statements  he  well  believe.  If  infants  are  in- 
cluded in  the  commission,  it  gives  the  same  testimony 
with  regard  to  them  that  other  passages  do.  If,  therefore, 
it  says  that  infants  are  included,  and  that  if  they  do  not 
believe  they  shall  perish,  all  other  passages  of  Scripture 
that  refer  to  the  subject,  must  bear  the  same  testimony, 
or  the  Bible  is  not  true.  Let  Dr.  Summers  confine  him- 
self to  the  commission,  then,  and  let  us  see  what,  in  that 
case,  is  his  argument:  The  Saviour  says  that  if  infants 
(as  well  as  all  others  included)  do  not  believe,  they  can- 
not be  saved ;  but  infants  do  not   believe,  and  yet  they 

are  saved  ;    therefore, 1 !     Again  : 

Christ  says,  in  the  commission,  that  faith  is  an  indispen- 
sable prerequisite  to  baptism  and  to  salvation  ;  but  he 
has  vielded  the  point  in  reference  to  salvation,  the  more 
important ;  therefore,  he  will  yield  the  point,  too,  with 
regard  to  baptism,  the  less  important ;  or,  in  other  words, 
as  infants,  in  spite  of,  and  in  opposition  to,  the  commis- 
sion, though  included  in  it,  can  be  saved  without  faith, 
so  can  they  be  baptized,  also,  in  spite  of  the  commission 


NO     PRECEPT    IxN     THE    SCRIPTURES.  211 

and  without  faith  !  Such  is  the  plain  English  of  the 
argument  of  a  gentleman  who  professes,  and  doubtless 
feels,  reverence  for  Christ  and  his  word  ! 

Infants  are  either  included  in  the  commission  or  they 
are  not.  If  they  are,  and  do  not  exercise  faith,  then,  if 
they  die  in  infancy,  they  surely  perish,  it"  Christ's  word 
be  true;  if  they  are  not  included  in  the  commission,  and, 
dying  in  infancy,  are  saved  without  faith,  then  faith  is 
not  necessary  to  the  salvation  of  infants,  and  God  has 
made  some  other  provision  that  is  suitable  to  their  case. 
Infants  are  not,  like  adults,  saved  by  the  Gospel.  Those 
who  die  in  infancy  are  saved  by  the  atonement  of  Christ, 
and  not  by  the  Gospel,  which  is  the  proclamaAicm  of  that 
atonement.  The  glad  tidings  of  good  news  are  never  ad- 
dressed to  them — the  prescriptions  of  the  Gospel  being 
applicable  only  to  those  who  can  hear,  understand  and 
believe  it.  Faith  in  Christ  secures  the  salvation  of 
aduits,  not  because  there  is  any  saving  efficacy  in  faith 
itself,  but  because,  by  divine  appointment,  it  is  the  means 
by  which  they  realize  the  benefits  of  Christ's  atonement. 
By  divine  appointment,  then,  infants  are  saved  in  some 
other  way,  and  without  faith.  What  that  is,  by  which 
they  are  brought  into  saving*  relations  with  Christ's 
atonement,  we  know  not.  Nothing  in  God's  word  is 
addressed  to  this  class  of  human  beino-s,  nor  are  his 
ministers  commissioned  with  a  message  to  them.  The 
Bible  says  enough  for  the  consolation  of  parents  who  are 
bereaved  of  their  infant  offspring  ;  but  it  does  not  satisfy 
their  curiosity  by  informing  them  as  to  the  means  by 
which  they  realize  the  benefits  of  the  atonement.     All 


212  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    mod;>:    and    subjects. 

that  is  necessary  to  secure  the  salvation  of  adults — the 
only  class  addressed — is  revealed  in  the  Gospel ;  but  it 
says  no  more  with  regard  to  the  salvation  of  infants, 
than  will  suffice  for  the  consolation  of  bereaved  parents 
and  friends. 

We  repeat  the  remark — the  commission  cannot  be 
tortured  into  giving  testimony  in  favor  of  infant  bap- 
tism. Neander,  the  great  pedobaptist  historian,  acknowl- 
edges : — "  As  faith  and  baptism  are  constantly  so  closely 
connected  together  in  the  New  Testament,  an  opinion 
was  likely  to  arise,  that  where  there  could  be  no  faith, 
there  could  also  be  no  baptism.  It  is  certain  that  Christ 
did  not  ordain  infant  baptism." — Church  History,  p. 
198. 

Objection  4.  "But  the  commission  does  not  forbid 
the  baptism  of  infants."  "  Suppose  there  were  no  com- 
mand to  baptize  them,  there  is  no  precept  forbidding  it." 
Summers,  p.  48.  To  this  I  answer  :  1 .  On  the  same  prin- 
ciple, the  Papist  may  argue  for  the  baptism  of  bells 
according  to  his  practice.  The  commission  did  not 
command  the  baptism  of  bells,  but  then  it  did  not  forbid 
it.  The  argument  of  the  Romanist  would  be  just  as 
good  as  yours,  and  his  practice  much  more  harmless. 
The  sprinkling  a  little  water  upon  a  bell  can  do  it  nei- 
ther good  nor  evil ;  but  the  performing  the  same  cere- 
mony to  a  babe,  in  the  name  of  the  Trinity,  will  have 
a  lasting  influence  upon  him  for  evil.  The  Papist  you 
denounce,  when  his  argument  is  just  as  good  as  yours 
and  his  practice  less  hurtful. 

2d.  The  silence  of  such  a  document  as  the  commission 


NO  PRECEPT  IN  THE  SCRIPTURES.        213 

is  the  same  as  a  prohibition  of  those  things  not  men- 
tioned. When  the  law  of  the  State  bestows  the  right 
of  suffrage  upon  all  males  twenty-one  years  of  age,  it 
excludes,  though  it  does  not  mention  them,  all  females, 
and  all  males  under  twenty-one.  Suppose,  then,  a 
female  or  a  minor  should  come  to  the  polls,  and  demand 
the  privilege  of  voting,  on  the  ground  that  the  law  does 
not  prohibit  them  by  name ;  Avould  not  their  plea  be 
just  as  good  as  yours?  Or  suppose  you  had  written  to 
an  agent,  instructing  him  to  purchase  for  you  all  the 
white  sheep  that  were  in  the  market,  and  he  should  send 
to  £ou,  with  them,  a  large  number  of  black  sheep,  and  a 
drove  of  mules  besides ;  would  he  satisfy  you  by  plead- 
ing that  these  animals  were  not  prohibited  in  your  letter, 
and  that  he  was  aware,  too,  that  wrhen  you  were  last 
operating  for  yourself,  you  had  bought  black  sheep  and 
mules  ?  When  we  instruct  an  agent  to  purchase  any 
articles  for  us,  is  it  necessary  to  specify,  by  way  of  pro- 
hibition, everything  else  that  is  vendable,  in  order  to 
limit  him  to  the  articles  ordered  ?  Instructions  of  this 
kind  are  perfectly  plain,  when  imposed  by  men  ;  how 
astonishing  it  is,  then,  that  there  should  be  any  ambi- 
guity in  the  same,  when  imposed  by  Christ !  The  dis- 
ciples were  instructed  to  preach  the  Gospel  to  all  who 
were  capable  of  understanding  it,  and  to  administer 
baptism  to  all  that  believed.  If,  therefore,  they  baptized 
any  who  did  not  profess  faith  in  Christ,  they  did  so  on 
some  authority  other  than  the  commission,  or  they  pre- 
sumptuously exceeded  Christ's  instructions.  We  may 
not  hesitate,  therefore,  t»;  adopt  the  language  of  the  dis- 


214  BAPTISM    IK    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

tinguished  pedobaptist,  Neander  :  "  It  is   certain  that 
Christ  did  not  ordain  infant  baptism." 

Section   II. — Passages  of  Scripture  usually  relied 
upon  as  Proofs  of  Infant  Baptism. 

The  distinguished  Dr.  Woods,  of  Andover,  very  frankly 
acknowledges  :  "  It  is  a  plain  case  that  there  is  no  ex- 
press precept  respecting  infant  baptism  in  our  sacred 
writings.  The  proof  that  it  is  a  divine  institution  must 
be  made  out  in  another  way." — Lectures  on  Infant  Bap- 
tism, p.  17.  "There  is  no  mention  made  in  the  New 
Testament  of  any  definite  instructions  of  Christ  to  the 
apostles,  or  of  the  apostles  to  Christians,  in  regard  to 
the  baptism  of  little  children,"  p.  40.  All  he  maintains 
is,  that  the  passages  usually  quoted,  "  imply  that  the 
children  of  believers  are  to  be  baptized,"  p.  42.  Dr. 
Summers,  however,  has  keener  penetration,  or  is  more 
adventurous,  and  asserts  :  "  The  New  Testament  abounds 
with  proofs  of  infant  baptism,"  p.  198.  He  terms  the 
admissions  of  Dr.  Woods  and  other  candid  pedobaptists, 
"unguarded  expressions,"  p.  177.  And  he  shows  very 
plainty,  that  he  is  fully  set  in  his  purpose  to  be  always 
"  guarded"  himself,  if  to  admit  nothing,  and  to  claim 
every  thing,  can  make  him  so.  It  is  to  be  hoped  that 
Dr.  Woods  may  have  the  privilege  of  reading  his  book, 
and  we  need  not  despair,  should  he  do  so,  that  he  will 
be  led  to  review  the  grounds  of  his  conclusions,  and, 
with  all  the  proper  manifestations  of  contrition,  beg  for- 
giveness of  his  brethren  that  he  tended  so  much,  by  his 
"  unguarded  expressions,"  "  to  overthrow  the  massy  bul- 


NO  PRECEPT  IN  THE  SCRIPTURES.       215 

warts  by  which  infant  baptism  is  defended  !"  Summers, 
p.  177.  Many  zealous  pedobaptiste  have  been  much  dis- 
satisfied at  the  " unguarded  expressions"  of  Dr.  Woods, 
Prof.  Stuart,  Neander,  and  others  ;  and  have  felt  no  little 
concern  for  the  safety  of  the  "  massy  bulwarks  of  infant 
baptism"  in  consequence.  It  is  to  be  hoped,  however, 
that  now  they  breathe  more  freely,  since  the  breaches 
have  been  all  repaired  by  this  new  champion  who  has 
appeared  in  the  field.  "Now  may  the  winter  of  their 
discontent  become  glorious  Summer  by  this  son  of 
York:' 

Dr.  Summers  says  :  "  The  membership  of  children, 
in  the  Christian  Church,  is  formally  recognized  in  the 
New  Testament,"  p.  27.  By  "children,"  of  course,  he 
means  infants.  And  the  argument,  we  suppose,  is  :  If 
eligible  to  membership  in  the  church,  they  are  entitled 
to  baptism,  the  initiating  ordinance  into  the  church. 

In  proof  he  quotes,  first,  Mark  x.  13-16:  "And 
they  brought  young  children  to  him  that  he  should 
touch  them,  and  his  disciples  rebuked  those  that  brought 
them.  But  when  Jesus  saw  it,  he  was  much  displeased, 
and  said  unto  them  :  Suffer  the  little  children  to  come 
unto  me  and  forbid  them  not,  for  of  such  is  the  king- 
dom of  heaven.  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  whosoever  shall 
jopt  receive  the  kingdom  of  God  as  a  little  child,  he 
snail  not  enter  therein.  And  he  took  them  up  in  his 
arms,  put  his  hands  upon  them  and  blessed  them." 
Now,  we  will  grant,  if  Dr.  Summers  pleases,  that  these 
"young  children"  were  infants,  and  then  beg  him  to 
Ml   us  how  this  passage,  formally  recognizes  them   as 


216  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

members  of  "the  Christian  Church.'1     Before  he  replies 
to  this,  however,  let  us  inquire  of  him,  what  infanta  are 
►  "  eligible  to  membership?"     On  page  22,  he  ans.wers: 
All.     "  They  are  not  baptized  because  their  parents  are 
believers  in  Christ."     "  If  there  be  any  for  whom  Christ 
did  not  die — any  whom  he  designed  and  decreed  not  to 
save,  such   are  obviously  ineligible  to  baptism.     But  if 
he  tasted  death  for  every  man — if  the  free  gift  has  come 
upon  all"  pp.  22,  33,  then  all  infants  are  eligible  to  mem- 
bership and  baptism.    He  is  very  clear  in  his  answer  to  us ; 
whether  he  is  as  satisfactory  to  Presbyterians  and  other 
Calvinists,  and  whether  these  last  could,  upon  Dr.  Sum- 
mers's principles  administer  baptism  to  any,  until  they 
have  discovered,  by  some  means,  that  they  are  among 
the  elect,  is  another  question.     Dr.  Summers  tells  us 
unequivocally,  however,  that  all  infants  are  eligible  to 
church  membership.     We  ask  him  again,  then,  how  he 
obtains  his  proof  from   this  passage  ?      He   answers : 
"  Can  any  unprejudiced  man  read  this  passage,  and  yet 
believe  that  Christ  intended  to  exclude  infants  from  his 
church?"  p.  28.     When  we   reply  that  we  see,  in   the 
passage,  no  reference  to  the  church  at  all,  he  adds: 
"  Those  to  whom  he  spoke  knew  that  children  were  mem- 
bers of  the  Jewish  Church,  &c,  and  could  they  imagine 
that  the  Saviour  would  ostracize  these  little  ones  from 
the  Christian  Church  !"  (ib.)    He  writes  as  if  he  thought 
that  Christ  had  "  opened  the  door  of  his  church  for  the 
reception  of  members,"  and  that  these  young  children 
had  applied  for  membership  through  those  that  brought 
them.     The  passage,  however,  informs  us  not  that  they 


NO    PRECEPT    IN    THE    SCRIPTURES.  217 

were  brought  to  be  admitted  into  the  elmrch,  but  that 
Christ  might  touch  them — not  that  he  received  them 
into  the  church,  but  that  kihe  took  them  up  in  his  arms, 
put  his  hands  upon  them  and  blessed  them."  And 
whatever  "  those  to  whom  he  spoke"  may  have  "  known  " 
or  "imagined"  about  the  membership  of  infants  in  the 
"Jewish  Church,"  their  knowledge  evidently  was  at 
fault  here,  for  "  his  disciples  rebuked  those  that  brought 
them."  But  Dr.- .Summers,  doubtless,  would  wish  to  be 
understood  to  found  his  argument  uot  upon  the  assertion 
that  this  was  a  formal  application  for  membership,  but 
upon  the  description  which  Christ  gives  of  the  character 
and  privileges  of  infants.  "  Of  such  is  the  kingdom  of 
heaven,"  is  the  foundation  of  the  whole  argument. 
"  Even  if  he  meant  to  say — Let  the  children  come,  for 
persons  like  them  are  to  be  members  of  my  church  ;  this 
does  not  exclude  the  little  ones  themselves  ;  it  rathe/ 
includes  them,  especially  as  it  is  assigned  as  a  reason 
why  they  should  not  be  prevented  from  being  brought 
to  him  to  receive  his  blessing,"  p.  28. 

Dr.  Summers  is  so  confident  of  the  soundness^  of  this 
reasoning,  that  he  has  no  doubt  of  its  success,  even 
though  he  grants  to  us,  in  part,  our  interpretation  of  the 
passage  ?  but  the  argument  labors  under  some  grave  dif- 
ficulties which  we  will  venture  to  suggest. 

Now,  it  will  make  no  difference  with  the  present  ques- 
tion, whether,  by  "  the  kingdom  of  heaven,"  is  meant 
Messiah's  reign  over  spiritual  subjects  on  earth,  or  in 
heaven,  or  both,  since  we  are  told,  "  except  a  man  be 
born  again,  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God." 


218  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

Dr.  Summers's  argument  is  based  upon  the  supposi- 
tion that  adults  are  admitted  to  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
because,  and  o\\\y  because,  in  certain  respects,  they  bear 
resemblance  to  children  ;  and  it  may  be  stated  thus : 
If  adults  are  admitted  to  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  or 
saved,  because  they  possess  the  characteristics  of  little 
children,  then  children  who  possess  the  same  character- 
istics, are  saved  also.  Now,  the  fact  is  that  adults  sire 
saved  not  because  they  possess  these  characteristics,  but 
they  possess  these  characteristics  because  they  are  saved. 
In  the  same  way,  when  Christ  says — "Blessed  are  the 
poor  in  spirit,  for  theirs  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven,"  and 
— "Blessed  are  they  that  are  persecuted  for  righteous- 
ness' sake,  for  theirs  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven,"  he  does 
not  mean  to  say  that  poverty  of  spirit,  or  persecution  for 
righteousness'  sake,  is  that  which  entitles  any  one  to 
admission  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ;  but  onlv  that 
of  such,  and  of  such  alone,  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
composed.  Christ  nowhere  commissioned  his  disciples 
to  proclaim,  in  answer  to  the  question — "What  shall  we 
do  to  be  saved  ?" — obtain  poverty  of  spirit,  or  secure  per- 
secution for  righteousness'  sake,  or  acquire  the  charac- 
teristics of  little  children  ;  but — "  Believe  on  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  and  thou  sha.lt  be  saved."  He  is  not  in- 
forming his  disciples  what  they  shall  do  to  inherit  eter- 
nal life,  but  describing  the  character  of  those  who  are 
already  prepared  to  enter  upon  it. 

My  pedobaptist  objector,  however,  may  say,  "  This 
amounts  to  the  6ame  thing.  Adults  that  possess  the 
dispositions  of  children  are  prepared  for  admission  to  the 


NO    PRECEPT    IN     THE    SCRIPTURES.  '1<l 

kingdom  of  heaven  ;  therefore,  for  the  same  reason,  the 
children  themsehes  are  prepared  for  admission  to  the 
kingdom  of  heaven."  I  ask  what  children?  All? 
Those  born  in  heathen  lands  as  well  as  the  offspring  of 
Christian  parents  ?  "Yes,"  say  Dr.  Summers  and  other 
Arminian  pedobaptists,  "  All ;  for  Christ  tasted  death 
for  every  man."  w  No ;"  say  Drs.  Woods,  Miller  and 
other  Calvinists,  "not  all,  but  only  the  children  of  be- 
lievers." Prove  to  a  Methodist  that  the  only  true  foun- 
dation for  infant  baptism  is,  that  the  subjects  of  it  are 
the  offspring  of  those  included  in  the  election  of  grace, 
and  he  rejects  it ;  prove  to  a  Presbyterian  that  the  only 
true  foundation  for  it  is,  that  Christ  atoned  for  the  sins 
of  all,  without  exception,  and  he  rejects  it ;  and  yet  they 
both  unite  harmoniously  together  in  practicing  and  de- 
fending it.  Strangely  flexible  is  this  infant  baptism  ! 
If  they  could  only  be  induced  to  examine  mutually  each 
Cithers  foundations,  each  would  find,  to  their  own  satis- 
faction, that  the  other  had  reared  up  "the  massy  bul- 
wark of  infant  baptism  "  upon  a  foundation  more  treacher- 
ous than  a  quagmire ;  and,  in  proportion  to  their  zeal, 
would  be  the  fierceness  with  which  they  would  reproach 
each  other  for  betraying  the  cause  which  they  profess  to 
advocate.  And  we  certainly  have  a  right  to  demand, 
gentlemen,  that  you  agree  among  yourselves  first,  as  to 
what  is  the  true  ground  upon  which  it  is  to  be  based, 
before  you  unite  in  urging  upon  us  infant  baptism  as  a 
duty. 

My  reader  will,  therefore,  perceive  that  I  will  have  to 
answer  these  ofentlemeu  0ne  at  a  time.     Let  us  put  this 


220  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

argument  first  into  the  mouth  of  a  Presbyterian  or  other 
Calvinist,  and  then  see  what  aid  Dr.  Summers  can  render 
us  in  replying  to  him. 

"  Adults  that  possess  the  dispositions  of  children  are 
prepared  foi  admission  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ; 
therefore,  for  the  same  reason,  children  themselves  are 
prepared  for  admission  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven." 
Very  well :  If  we  ask  you  what  children  ?  you  will  reply, 
"the  children  of  believers,"  Dr.  Woods,  p.  40.  "The 
infant  seed  of  believers  are  members  of  the  church  -in 
virtue  of  their  birth,"  Dr.  Miller,  p.  26.  "  The  great 
principle  of  family  baptism,  of  receiving  all  the  younger 
members  of  households  on  the  faith  of  their  domestic 
head,  seems  to  be  plainly  and  distinctly  established," 
p.  24. 

The  following  are  difficulties  which,  upon  your  own 
principles,  are  in  the  way  : 

1.  Why  should  there  be  such  a  difference  between  the 
infants  of  believers  and  of  unbelievers  ?  Does  the  child 
of  an  unbeliever  who  dies  in  its  infancy  go  to  perdition  ? 
You  answer,  very  promptly,  no ;  though  some  of  you 
confuse  your  categorical  reply  by  the  addition  of  an 
"unintelligible  jargon,"  to  use  Dr.  Summers's  words, 
about  the  "  unco venan ted  mercies  of  God."  Are  the 
children,  then,  of  unbelievers  that  die  in  infancy  admit- 
ted to  God's  kingdom  above  ?  If  yes ;  why  ?  Because 
they  are  by  nature,  and  as  "  young  children,"  different 
from  the  other  children  of  unbelievers  that  live  to  adult 
age  ?  Please  answer  frankly.  A  frank  reply  to  this,  on 
Calvinistic  principles,  will  refute  not  only  Dr.  Summers, 


NO    PRECEPT    IN    THE    SCRIPTURES.  221 

but  yourselves  also.  If  you  say  that  they  are,  by  nature, 
different  from  the  other  children  of  unbelievers,  you  deny 
your  own  and  the  Apostle  Paul's  doctrine  of  original  sin : 
if  you  say  God  prepares  them  for  heaven  by  the  opera- 
tions of  his  spirit  in  changing  them  from  the  carnal  to 
the  spiritual  nature,  you  contradict  Dr.  Summers  in  one 
respect,  and  yourselves  in  two  : — him  when  he  says  all 
children  are  by  nature  prepared  for  heaven,  and  on  that 
ground  for  baptism  also  : — yourselves,  (1,)  when  you  say 
any  young  children,  as  young  children,  are  fit  for  heaven ; 
and  (2,)  when  you  say  that  only  the  infant  seed  of  be- 
lievers are  eligible  to  church  membership  and  to  bap- 
tism;  for  according  to  Dr.  Miller,  "If  the  kingdom  of 
glory  belong  to  the  infant  seed  of  believers,  much  more 
have  they  a  title  to  the  privileges  of  the  church  on  earth," 
p.  28.  On  the  same  principles  Dr.  Summers  and  I  may 
say,  "if  the  kingdom  of  glory  belong  to  the  infant  seed 
of  unbelievers,  much  more  then  have  they  a  title  to  the 
privileges  of  the  church  on  earth  ;"  and  how  dare  you 
deprive  them  of  it  i 

2.  If  the  infant  seed  of  believers  die  in  infancy,  are 
they  admitted  to  the  kingdom  of  glory  upon  a  principle 
different  from  that  which  secures  the  salvation  of  the 
young  child  of  an  unbeliever  ?  If  not,  Dr.  Summers 
and  I  will  ask  you.  why  then  do  you  refuse  to  the  latter 
church  membership  and  baptism  ?  If  they  are  admitted 
upon  a  different  principle,  what  is  it  ?  You  sometimes 
talk  about  receiving  infants  upon  the  faith  of  their  par- 
ents. Are  they  admitted  to  heaven  upon  the  faith  of 
their  parents  ?     Then  Dr.  Summers  and  I  will  say,  you 


222  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

make  religion  hereditary,  you  cause  some  to  exercise 
faith  by  proxy,  and  you  people  heaven  with  infant  souls, 
some  of  them  regenerated  by  the  spirit  of  God,  and 
others  by  the  faith  and  holiness  of  their  parents! 

3.  There  is  another  view  of  your  infant  baptism  which 
utterly  denies  one  doctrine  of  your  Calvinistic  system — 
and  I  am  sorry  for  your  inconsistency;  for,  I  believe,  in 
holding  the  doctrines  of  grace,  you  are  holding  the  truth 
— begging  the  pardon  of  my  present  colleague,  Dr.  Sum- 
mers. If  the  faith  of  the  parent  so  changes  the  heart  of 
the  offspring,  as  to  prepare  them  for  heaven  and  for  the 
church,  then  is  your  doctrine  of  the  perseverance  of  the 
saints  not  true  ;  for  all  of  them  who  grow  up  to  be  adults 
do  totally,  and  many  of  them  do  finally  fall  from  grace. 
For'if  you  take  the  position  that  all  the  children  of  be- 
lievers are  saved,  never  mind  how  they  live,  or  how  they 
die,  then  you  not  only  establish  hereditary  salvation,  but 
you  save  the  descendants  by  the  imputation  of  the  faith 
of  the  ancestors.  You  baptize  the  infant  seed  of  believers 
either  because  you  think  baptism  will  regenerate  them, 
or  because  they  are  regenerated  already.  The  former 
you  deny,  though  the  Puseyifes  maintain  it.  If  the 
latter  be  your  assumption,  you  must  maintain  either 
that  the  grace  of  regeneration  is  imparted  to  them  by 
the  faith  of  the  parent,  and,  therefore,  by  carnal  descent, 
or  by  the  spirit  of  God  through  his  regard  to  the  faith- 
ful parent.  Let  your  supposition  be  what  it  may,  then, 
besides  other  absurdities  the  doctrine  of  the  perseverance 
of  saints  is  abandoned  ;  for  there  is  not  one  of  these 
"young  children"  of  believers  but  what  goes  astray  from 


NO  PRECEPT  IN  THE  SCRIPTURES.        223 

his  youth,  speaking  lies  and  practicing  other  abomina- 
tions ;  and  multitudes  of  them  die  in  a  state  of  impeni- 
tency,  and  go  to  perdition. 

4.  If  you  say  you  do  not  baptize  "  the  infant  seed  of 
believers  "  because  they  already  have  been  regenerated, 
you  escape  this  difficulty,  but  you  fall  upon  others  thai 
are  greater.  In  the  first  place  you  abandon  the  ground 
of  the  present  argument,  which  is  that  the  infants  of  be- 
lievers are  prepared  by  their  dispositions — by  the  state 
of  their  hearts — for  admission  to  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 
If  you  take  the  position  that  the  infants  of  believers  are 
not  regenerated  before  baptism,  then  you  give  up  the 
argument  from  the  phrase,  "  Of  such  is  the  kingdom  of 
heaven,"  in  the  sense  you  usually  attach  to  it.  This 
would  be  enough  for  our  present  purpose,  since  you  have, 
in  this  sense,  relinquished  your  hold  upon  this  passage 
as  a  proof-text  for  infant  baptism.  But  we  are  not  will- 
ing to  let  you  go  at  this,  without  asking  you  a  few  ques- 
tions more.  "  Baptism,"  you  believe,  "  is  an  emblem  of 
moral  cleansing  and  purity.  It  refers  to  the  remission 
of  sins  by  the  blood  of  Christ,  and  regeneration  by  his 
spirit."  Dr.  Miller,  p.  23.  And  you  administer  it,  you 
say,  to  those  who  have  not  as  yet  experienced  the  grace 
of  regeneration  by  the  spirit.  Why  ? — because  you 
think  the  ceremony  of  baptism  will  regenerated  No; 
you  deny  this;  but,  in  my  opinion,  this  is  the  only  con- 
sistent ground  for  a  pedobaptist  to  occupy  who  believes, 
like  you,  in  the  doctrine  of  original  sin.  You  disclaim 
this,  however,  and  I  admit  it.  Do  you  administer  bap- 
tism to  infants,  because  you  think  that  in  applying  the 


224  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

water  to  the  child  in  the  name  of  the  Trinity,  you  secure 
in  the  act  the  regenerating-  influences  of  the  Spirit  ?  That, 
cannot  be,  for  those  regenerated  are  "  born  not  of  blood, 
nor  of  the  ivill  of  the  flesh,  nor  of  the  will  of  man,  but 
of  God."  And,  besides,  this  would  bring  the  doctrine 
of  perseverance  into  the  same  jeopardy  noticed  above; 
for  what  vast  multitudes  of  "  baptized  "  reprobates  have 
we  in  this  country  and  in  Europe  !  Do  you  say  that  you 
baptize  them  to  indicate  that  they  will  be  regenerated 
hereafter?  I  ask  you,  how  do  you  know  i  Are  all  the 
children  of  believers  sure  of  salvation  \  Will  all  the 
descendants  of  "faithful  Abraham"  be  admitted  to 
heaven  ?  If  you  say  that  the  faith  of  the  parent  is 
strong  and  effective,  only  in  behalf  of  his  immediate  de- 
scendants, 1  ask,  was  Ishmael  received  into  glory  ;  were 
the  sons  of  Eli — Hophni  and  Phinehns;  and  the  sons 
of  David — Amnon  and  Absalom,  saved  ?  And  if  all  the 
children  of  believers  may  not  be  regenerated,  what  right 
have  you  to  administer  to  them  that  ordinance,  which, 
according  to  your  own  showing,  is  a  sign  of  inward  puri- 
fication ?  If  you  say,  with  Dr.  Miller,  that  "  the  kingdom 
of  heaven"  means  the  church,  and  that  infants  are  born 
into  it — that  when  Christ  says — "  Of  such  is  the  king- 
dom of  heaven,"  he  means  that  the  infants  of  believers 
are  entitled,  by  natural  birth  to  membership,  and  that, 
to  them,  baptism  is  not  expressive  of  inward  cleansing, 
but  only  a  ceremony  that  publicly  ratifies  their  right  to 
membership,  then  I  say,  you  can  never  exclude  such  from 
membership,  so  long  as  they  can  prove  that  their  parents, 
one  or  both,  had  made  a  profession  of  faith  in  Christ 


NO  PRECEPT  IN  THE  SCRIPTURES.        225 

That,  and  that  alone,  gave  them  a  title  to  admission,  and 
so  long  as  that  can  be  shown  to  be  true,  they  can  never 
be  deprived  of  membership  !  Upon  this  principle,  your 
churches  would  diner  but  little,  in  morality,  from  the 
world  around.  Nay,  instead  of  being  lights,  they  won!*: 
constitute  a  moral  darkness  which  may  be  felt. 

Your  views  of  the  subject  of  baptism  differ,  materially, 
from  those  of  the  "  man  sent  from  God  "  to  administer 
it  first.  You  only  ask  whether  parents  have  been  pro- 
fessed believers  ;  John  the  Baptist  rejected  "multitudes" 
that  came  to  him,  saying — "  Think  not  to  say  within 
yourselves,  we  have  Abraham  to  our  father  ;  but  bring 
forth  fruits  worthy  of  repentence."  Upon  Calvinistic 
principles,  iufant  baptism  cannot  be  sustained  from  this 
passage  of  Scripture,  so  long  as  its  advocates  do  not  take 
the  ground  of  Augustine,  and  prove  it,  too,  that  baptism 
removes  the  taint  of  original  sin. 

I  have  no  doubt  it  gives  Dr.  Summers  much  pleasure 
to  run  you  thus  into  a  corner,  for  he  hates  your  Calvin- 
ism, if  possible,  even  more  than  he  does  our  believers' 
immersion.  And  it  would  not  be  surprising  if,  in  his 
heart,  he  is  reproaching  you  for  thus  betraying  the  cause 
of  infant  baptism.  Let  us  see,  however,  if  you  and  I 
cannot  do  the  same  iervice  for  him.  Let  us  place  the 
same  argument  in  his  mouth,  and  see  whether  Armin- 
ianism  can  furnish  it  any  better  protection.  In  one  re- 
spect, however,  he  has  the  advantage  of  you,  if,  indeed, 
it  can  be  called  an  advantage.  The  basis  upon  which 
he  rests  infant  baptism  is  so  much  like  that  which  it 
sustains,  that  it  will  be  difficult  to  find  in  it  a  plank 
15 


226  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

sound  enough  to  serve  as  a  lever  to  roll  oft'  the  super- 
incumbent rottenness.  We  will  let  Dr.  Summers,  how- 
ever, repeat  the  argument,  and  see  if  he  has  more  right 
to  indulge  a  feeling  of  complacency  than  you : 

"  Adults  that  possess  the  dispositions  of  children  are 
prepared  for  admission  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ; 
therefore,  the  children  themselves,  possessing  such  dispo- 
sitions, are  prepared  for  admission  to  the  kingdom  of 
heaven."     To  him  I  remark  : 

•1.  This  is  reasoning  upon  the  supposition  that  the 
adults  referred  to  and  "young  children"  are,  in  all  re- 
spects, anke.  While  there  are  many  points  of  resem- 
blance, there  are  also  many  and  important  points  of  dis 
similarity.  The  adults  are  in  a  state  of  grace,  infants 
are  in  a  state  of  nature  ;  the  adults  have  been  regener- 
ated by  the  Spirit  of  Clod,  infants  are  yet  "  in  the  flesh," 
and  "they  that  are  in  the  flesh  cannot  please  God ;"  the 
adults  have  believed  in  Christ,  infants  have  never  heard 
of  Christ,  and  "how  can  they  believe  in  him  of  whom 
they  have  not  heard  ?"  While,  therefore,  it  is  true,  as 
Christ  says,  that  those  adults  who  are  like  children,  in 
certain  respects,  are  prepared  for  admission  to  the  king- 
dom of  heaven  ;  that  which  causes  their  qualification 
for,  and  admission  to  the  kingdom,  is  the  very  thing  in 
which  they  are  dissimilar  to  infants  in  a  state  of  nature. 
For,  except  a  man  be  born  again  he  cannot  see  the  king- 
dom of  God. 

2.  Your  idea  that  infants,  in  a  state  of  nature,  are 
prepared  for  admission  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  is 
directly  opposed  to  your  doctrine  of  "  total  depravity," 


NO    PRECEPT    IN    THE    SCRIPTURES.  22*7 

— though,  I  am  admonished,  we  must  be  very  careful  in 
handling  this,  for  it  is  not  so  sound  but  that  it  is  in 
danger  of  breaking  in  our  hands.  If  all  are  totally  de- 
praved, how  can  infants,  while  in  a  state  of  total  depra- 
vity, be  fit  subjects  for  admission  into  the  kingdom  ? 
Christ  says — "  Except  a  man  (Greek,  tis,  any  one)  be 
born  again,  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God."  "  That 
which  is  born  of  flesh  is  flesh,  and  that  which  is  born  of 
the  Spirit  is  spirit,"  John  iii.  36.  And  Paul  says  :  "In 
Christ  Jesus,  neither  circumcision  availeth  any  thing,  nor 
uncircnmcision,  but  a  new  creature"  Gal.  v.  15.  Your 
argument,  therefore,  not  only  contradicts  Christ  and 
Paul,  but  your  own  doctrine  of  total  depravity  also. 
When  this  is  the  result,  it  is  evident  to  every  body  else, 
and  it  ought  to  be  evident  to  yourself  also,  that  you  mis- 
understand the  Saviour  when  he  says — "  Of  such  is  the 
kingdom  of  heaven." 

3.  You  must  not  interpret  the  Scriptures  so  as  to 
make  one  part  contradict  another.  If  that  which  is 
born  of  flesh  is  flesh,  and  if  they  that  are  in  the  flesh 
cannot  please  God,  then  infants,  while  in  a  state  of  na- 
ture, cannnot  please  God,  and  are,  therefore,  not  suitable 
subjects  for  his  kingdom.  It  is  surprising  that  you  do 
not  see  the  contradictions  and  absurdities  which  this 
position  of  yours  involves.  If  you  mean  to  say  that  all 
infants,  in  a  state  of  nature,  are  prepared  for  heaven, 
then  you  contradict  Christ,  the  apostle,  and  yourselves, 
as  we  have  shown  above.  If  you  mean  to  say  that  all 
are  changed  into  the  spiritual  state  after  their  birth,  and 
while  infants,  then  you  contradict  not  only  the  Scrip- 


228  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

tures  and  your  Calvinistic  colleagues,  but  universal  ob- 
servation and  experience.  As  we  have  said  before,  you 
have  never  yet  seen  the  individual  who  grew  up  holy 
from  his  infancy.  If  you  mean  to  say  that  those  only 
who  die  in  their  infancy  are  "  born  of  the  Spirit,"  we 
will  agree  with  you  ;  but,  then,  with  this  statement,  you 
can  look  neither  us  nor  your  Calvinistic  colleagues  in  the 
face.  They  will  ask  you,  if  only  those  wdio  die  in  infancy 
are  regenerated,  why,  then,  do  you  insist  that  all  infants 
are  entitled  to  the  ordinance  I  And  toe  will  inquire, 
how  you  can,  upon  these  principles  of  yours,  baptize 
any  ?  How  can  you  ascertain  who  will  die  in  their  in- 
fancy ? — and,  discovering  that,  how  can  you  know  at 
what  time  they  experience  the  new  birth — whether 
before,  or  immediately  "  in  the  hour  and  article  of 
death  ?"  If  these  be  your  principles,  then  none  but  dead 
infants  would  be  the  proper  subjects  of  baptism.  To 
baptize  these  alone  would  be  more  consistent  with  your 
principles,  and,  I  will  add,  less  hurtful  to  the  world,  than 
your  present  practice. 

4.  Besides,  this  practice  of  yours  is  inconsistent  with 
your  view  of  the  import  of  the  ordinance.  You  say  all 
infants  are  to  be  baptized,  because  Christ  died  for  all, 
and  yet  you  maintain  that  baptism  is  not  a  symbol  of 
the  work  of  Christ,  but  "  of  the  renewing  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,"  p.  14.  To  be  consistent,  then,  you  ought  to  say 
either,  with  Augustin,  that  all  infants  are  to  be  baptized 
because  the  ordinance  removes  the  taint'of  original  sin, 
or  because  the  taint  has  been  already  removed  by  "  the 
renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost."     If  the  former,  you  will 


NO  PRECEPT  IN  THE  SCRIPTURES.       229 

be  maintaining  the  doctrine  of  the  Romanist  and  the 
Puseyite ;  if  the  latter,  joxl  must  sa}^  either  that  all  in- 
fants are  renewed,  or  a  part  only  ;  and  then  your  doc- 
trine will  labor  under  the  difficulties  mentioned  above. 

Dr.  Summers,  however,  in  his  "  Strictures  on  Dr. 
Howell,"  boldly  cuts  the  knot,  and  contradicts,  not  only 
his  Calvinistic  colleagues,  but  himself  also.  On  page 
184,  he  maintains — "Why  baptize  children  if  they  are 
not  born  in  sin  ?"  This  language!  in  the  mouth  of  Au- 
gustin,  had  some  significancy,  because  he  believed  that 
baptism  washes  away  original  sin ;  in  Dr.  Summers's 
mouth,  with  his  disclaimer  of  baptismal  regeneration,  it 
has  no  consistent  significance  at  all.  But  he  proceeds — 
"And  we-will  take  occasion  to  turn  the  tables  and  boldly 
assert,  that  nothing  is  so  well  adapted  to  perpetuate  the 
truth  on  the  subject  of  original  sin  as  the  practice  of 
infant  baptism,"  p.  184.  In  the  same  connection,  he 
indignantly  denies  that  the  Methodists  believe  baptism 
can  remove  the  taint  of  original  sin.  In  another  part  of 
his  work,  then,  baptism  symbolizes  the  renewing  of  the 
Holy  Ghost ;  here  it  is  meant  to  teach  the  entire  ab- 
sence of  His  influences ;  there,  it  is  emblematical  of 
sanctification,  p.  13  ;  here,  it  is  emblematical  of  total 
depravity  ;  there,  it  is  designed  to  show  that  this  infant 
is  a  child  of  God,  and  an  heir  of  heaven  \  here,  it  puts 
the  mark  of  Cain  on  its  forehead,  and  proclaims  that  it 
was  conceived  in  sin  and  brought  forth  in  iniquity  ;  there 
it  ratifies  its  claims  to  admission  to  the  church  and  to 
the  kingdom  of  glory  ;  here,  it  prohibits  its  entrance, 
and  slams  the  door  in  its  face.     Infant  baptism,  then, 


230  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

is  a  standing  monument,  designed  to  perpetuate  the 
remembrance  of  original  sin,  and  so  long  as  it  stands 
with  this  inscription  upon  it,  it  is  an  ordinance  not  to 
initiate  infants  into  the  church  but  to  drive  them  from 
its  portals. 

Let  Dr.  Summers  take  either  or  both  of  these  conflict- 
ing views,  and  we  ask  if  it  has  not  been  shown,  that 
Christ  could  not  have  meant  to  teach  that  infants,  in  a 
state  of  nature,  are  fit  for  admission  into  his  kingdom. 
But  we  are  not  done  with  Dr.  Summers's  argument  yet. 

5.  My  presbyterian  colleague  and  I  will  ask  you  fur- 
ther, if  Christ  designed  to  teach  that  all  infants  are  eli- 
gible to  church  membership  and  to  baptism,  why  do 
you  not  "baptize"  others  besides  the  children  of  your 
members  ?  Do  you  answer  that  you  administer  it  to  all 
that  are  brought  to  you •}  We  ask  again,  have  you  ever 
pressed  upon  unbelieving  parents,  who  respect  religion, 
their  duty  to  place  their  children  in  the  way  of  securing 
their  rights,  and  enjoying  their  privileges;  and  have 
you  ever  endeavored  to  aid  those  infants  whose  parents 
do  wickedly  deny  to  them  "  the  seal  of  the  covenant?" 
Should  a  minor  come  to  you,  professing  faith  in  Christ, 
and  requesting  baptism,  you  would  not.  be  deterred  as  a 
faithful  minister,  from  performing  your  duty,  though  the 
infidel  parent  should  forbid  you,  on  the*  ground  that  he 
believed  that  the  religion  of  Christ  is  a  fable.  Now, 
you  know  that  there  are  thousands  of  infants  who  are 
entitled  to  the  rite,  and,  to  use  the  language  of  Cyprian, 
"crying  for  baptism,"  and  though  they  are  in  your 
reach,  you   lift  up  neither  hand  nor  voice  in  their  aid. 


NO    PRECEPT    IN    THE    SCRIPTURES.  231 

How  much  they  lose,  Dr.  Summers  knows,  for  he  says 
of  himself — "  We  do  not  hesitate  to  say  that  we  have 
derived  great  benefit  from  our  baptism  in  infancy,"  p.  194. 
As  God's  laws  are  to  be  obeyed  rather  than  man's,  if  it 
is  his  will  that  all  infants  are  to  be  baptized,  then  it  will 
be  lawful  for  you,  with  the  Romanists  in  some  countries, 
to  put  the  "  seal "  on  them  wherever  you  can  obtain 
access  to  them. 

Finally. — And  this  I  address  to  both  Calvinistic  and 
Arminian  Pedobaptists.  If  infants,  in  a  state  of  nature, 
are  entitled  to  church  membership,  and,  of  consequence, 
to  baptism,  then,  on  the  same  principles,  they  are  enti- 
tled to  partake  of  the  Lord's  Supper  also.  And  why  do 
you  withhold  this  from  them  ?  Here,  the  large  majority 
of  your  church  members  are  excluded  from  the  table  of 
the  Lord — why  ?  Are  they  guilty  of  any  crime  ?  The 
very  same  reasons  that  would  exclude  them  from  the 
privileges  of  the  one  ordinance,  are  sufficient  to  bar  them 
from  the  other.  The  Roman  Apostacy,  from  whom  you 
received  this  rite,  more  consistent  than  yon,  did,  for  many 
centuries,  admit  infants  to  "  the  Eucharist." 

The  meaning  of  Christ  when  he  says — "Of  such  is 
the  kingdom  of  heaven,"  is  so  plain  that,  if  it  were  not 
for  the  necessities  of  infant  baptism,  it  would  never  have 
been  misunderstood,  nor  its  common-sense  interpretation 
called  in  question.  Of  precisely  similar  import  is  his 
language  in  Matt,  xviii.  1-6 — "At  the  same  time  came 
the  disciples  unto  Jesus,  saying — Who  is  the  greatest  in 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  ?  And  Jesus  called  a  little  child 
unto  him,  and  set  him  in  the  midst  of  them  and  said: 


232  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

Verily  I  say  unto  you,  except  ye  be  converted,  and  be- 
come as  little  children,  ye  shall  not  enter  into  the  king- 
dom of  heaven.  Whosoever,  therefore,  shall  humble 
himself  as  this  little  child,  the  same  is  greatest  in  the 
kingdom  of  heaven.  And  whoso  shall  receive  one  such 
Httle  child,  in  my  name,  receiveth  me.  But  whoso  shall 
offend  one  of  these  little  ones  which  believe  in  me,  it 
were  better  for  him  that  a  millstone  were  hanged  about 
his  neck,  and  that  he  were  drowned  in  the  depth  of  the 
sea."  And  in  the  passage  quoted  by  Dr.  Summers,  im- 
mediately after  saying — "  Of  such  is  the  kingdom  of 
heaven,"  the  Saviour  adds :  "  Whosoever  shall  not  re- 
ceive the  kingdom  of  heaven  as  a  little  child,  shall  not 
enter  therein."  Any  one,  then,  who  is  not  seeking  after 
a  -proof  of  infant  baptism,  would  see  that,  when  Christ 
says  that  the  subjects  of  his  kingdom  are  to  be  like  little 
children  he  means  that  they  must  be  free  from  pride 
and  malice,  and  possess  a  humble  and  teachable  dispo- 
sition. It  would  be  just  as  reasonable  to  maintain  from 
the  phrase — "  Whoso  shall  receive  one  such  little  child 
in  my  name,"  &c,  that  infants  can  be  ambassadors  or 
ministers  of  Christ,  as  to  argue  from  the  phrase — "  Of 
such  is  the  kingdom1  of  heaven,"  that  infants  in  their 
natural  state,  are  subjects  of  Christ's  kingdom,  on  earth 
or  in  glory. 

We  have  examined  the  argument  from  this  passage  at 
great  length,  because  it  is  the  one  chiefly  relied  on  by  our 
opponents,  and  we  have  no  doubt  that,  by  this  time,  the 
majority  of  our  readers  are  ready  to  adopt  the  language 
of  Bishop  Taylor — to  rely  upon  this  text  for  proof  of  in- 


NO  PRECEPT  IN  THE  SCRIPTURES.        233 

tant  baptism,  'k  proves  nothing1  so  much  as  the  want  of 
better  argument." 

The  passage  says  not  one  word  about  infant  baptism 
or  infant  ehurch  membership.  Those  who  brought  the 
little  children,  desired  that  Christ  should  touch  them  ; 
and  he  took  them  up  in  his  arms,  put  his  hands  upon 
them  and  blessed  them.  It  does  not  hint  that  it  is  the 
duty  of  the  parent  to  dedicate  his  infant  offspring  by 
baptism,  but  it  teaches,  unequivocally,  that  which  is  infi- 
nitely more  valuable  to  the  pious  parent — that  Christ 
has  a  regard  for  little  children,  and  that  he  permits 
parents  to  bring  them  to  him  for  his  blessing.  Let  all 
then  bring  their  beloved  offspring,  in  prayer,  to  Christ, 
and  beseech  his  blessing  upon  them,  ever  recollecting 
his  gracious  words  "  Suffer  little  children  to  come  unto 
me  and  forbid  them  not,  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of 
heaven." 

Section  III. — Passages  relied  on,  continued.  1  Cor. 
vii.  14,  and  Acts  ii.  39. 

Another  passage  of  Scripture  on  which  our  opponents 
lay  great  stress,  as  a  proof  of  infant  baptism,  is  found,  1 
Cor.  vii.  14.  "  For  tne  unbelieving  husband  is  sanctified 
by  the  wife,  and  the  unbelieving  wife  is  sanctified  by 
the  husband  ;  else  were  your  children  unclean,  but  now 
are  they  holy."  The  argument  is  briefly  this  :  "  If  the 
children  of  a  Christian  parent,  who  is  the  husband  or 
wile  of  a  heatben,  be  permitted  to  take  rank  with  the 
saints,  agia,  that  is,  Christian*, or  members  of  the  church 
— as  the  word  imports  in  the  New  Testament — the  con- 


234  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

jugal  relation  has  been  sanctified  to  a  Christian  husband 
or  wife,  so  circumstanced,  and  must  not  be  dissolved. 
This,  as  the  context  shows,  was  the  point  in  dispute  in 
the  Corinthian  Church  ;  but  it  could  not  have  been  set- 
tled by  such  an  argument  as  this,  had  not  the  church- 
membership  of  children  been  an  admitted  fact,7'  Sum- 
mers, p.  30.  To  this  I  reply,  that  a  common-sense 
interpretation  of  this  passage,  according  to  the  context 
and  the  laws  of  language,  and  of  argumentation,  will 
show  that,  so  far  from  sustaining  infant  baptism,  it  fur- 
nishes a  "  decisive  argument"  against  it.  This  Dr.  Dagg, 
the  distinguished  President  of  Mercer  University,  has 
conclusively  shown,  in  a  tract  with  this  title,  issued  by 
the  "Southern  Baptist  Publication  Society."  The  apos- 
tle's argument  is  a  very  simple  one,  and,  infant  baptism 
out  of  the  question,  would  be  easily  understood.  The 
question  was  propounded  to  him  by  the  church  at 
Corinth,  whether  a  believing  husband  should  separate 
from  an  unbelieving  wife,  and  vice  versa,  on  the  ground 
that  she  was  unclean  according  to  Jewish  notions.  Cer- 
tainly not,  says  Paul ;  for  if  a  wife,  because  an  unbe- 
liever, is  so  unclean  that  her  believing  husband  should 
separate  from  her,  then,  on  the  same  principles,  believ- 
ing parents  onust  separate  from,  and  have  no  association 
with  their  children,  because  they  also  are  unbelievers. 
This  was  a  conclusion  that  the  inquirers  would  at  once 
repel ;  and  thus  they  could  see  the  principle  which 
prompted  their  inquiry  reduced  to  absurdity.  If  this 
is  the  correct  interpretation  of  the  passage,  then  as  Dr. 
Dagg  has  shown,  the  vitness  whom  our  opponents  bring 


NO    PRECEPT    IN    THE    SCRIPTURES  235 

to  the  stand,  testifies  decisively  against  them.  Dr.  Sum- 
mers refers  to  Dr.  Dagg's  argument,  but  it  is  evident  he 
misapprehends  it.  The  Doctor's  argument  is  contained 
in  epitome  in  a  note  which  he  furnished  for  "  Wilson's 
Scripture  Manual,"  which  the  reader  will  thank  me  for 
inserting  here  at  length. 

"In  meditating  upon  1  Cor.  \ii.  14,  I  soon  perceived  that  the 
unbelieving  husband  or  wife  is  sanctified  or  holy,  as  well  as  the 
children  ;  and,  therefore,  has  as  good  ground  to  claim  baptism 
from  the  passage  as  they  have.  This  convinced  me  that  infant 
baptism  cannot  be  proved  by  it ;  and  with  this  discovery  I 
remained  for  some  time  content,  choosing  rather  to  be  ignorant 
of  its  true  meaning  than  to  misunderstand  it.  I  was  afterwards 
struck  with  the  fact  that  the  apostle  writes,  '  your  children,'' 
and  not  their' children.  I  then  saw  that  he  meant  the  children 
of  all  the  members  of  the  church,  including  even  those  who  had 
both  parents  believers.  Hereupon  I  inquired,  how  can  it  be 
that  the  children  of  two  believing  parents  would  be  unclean?  I 
did  not  see  how  this  could  be  possible,  if  the  church  at  Corinth 
had  been  a  Pedobaptist  church  ;  for  then  all  these  children 
would  have  been  consecrated  to  God  in  baptism,  and  brought 
within  the  pale  of  the  church.  I  could  only  account  for  it  on 
the  supposition  that  the  church  was  a  Baptist  church  ;  for  then 
these  children  were  unbaptized,  and  had  no  nearer  relation  to 
the  church  than  the  unbelieving  husband  or  wife,  and  being  in 
the  same  predicament,  might  be  accounted  unclean  by  the  same 
rule.  I  moreover  thought  that  if  the  church  at  Corinth  was  a 
Baptist  church,  so  were  all  the  other  churches  of  those  times. 
Here  1  made  a  second  pause  in  my  investigation,  before  I  could 
satisfy  myself  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  terms  holy  and  xinclcan  ; 
at  length  I  observed  that  die  apostle,  in  the  fifth  chapter,  speaks 
of  keeping  company  and  eating  with  persons,  Here  I  thought 
of  the  saying  oi  Peter,  Acta  x.  28,  and  of  the  charge  brought 


236  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

aga>  ast  him,  Acts  xi.  3  ;  and  of  his  conduct  at  Antioch,  Gal.  ii. 
12;  and  of  John  xviii.  28,  and  2  Cor.  Ari.  17.  It  appeared  from 
these  passages,  that  persons  were  accounted  common  or  unclean 
when  it  was  unlawful  to  enter  their  houses,  to  eat  or  to  keep  com- 
pany with  them,  or  to  touch  them.  I  then  bethought  myself 
that  in  the  distinction  between  clean  meats  and  unclean,  be- 
tween  holy  persons  and  places,  and  those  which  are  unholy,  it 
is  the  common  language  of  Scripture  to  call  anything  holy  or 
clean,  which  a  person  consecrated  to  the  Lord  may  lawfully 
touch  or  use  ;  and  any  thing  common  or  unclean,  the  touch  or 
use  of  which  is  prohibited.  In  this  sense  of  the  terms,  I  saw 
that  the  text  became  very  easy  to  be  understood,  if  the  notion 
that  these  children  had  been  baptized,  were  but  driven  from 
one's  mind.  The  apostle,  in  effect  says  :  '  If  it  is  unlawful  for  a 
member  of  the  church  to  dwell,  keep  company,  or  eat  with*,  or 
touch  an  unbeliever,  then  it  is  unlawful  for  you  to  dwell,  keep 
company,  or  eat  Avith,  or  touch  your  children  ;  and,  conse- 
quently, the  care,  support,  and  especially  the  religious  education 
of  them,  must  be  wholly  neglected:  The  laws  of  the  common- 
wealth of  Israel  are  not  applicable  to  Gospel  churches,  because 
of  their  different  organization.  That  children  are  not  members 
of  the  latter,  is  the  very  fact  upon  which  the  apostle  seizes,  for 
the  foundation  of  his  argument,  in  this  text,  which  is,  therefore, 
decisive  against  infant  baptism." 

Now  we  ask  the  unprejudiced  reader,  which  is  the 
most  reasonable  interpretation  of  the  text,  this,  or  that 
which  Dr.  Summers  gives?  And  yet  this  is  one  of  the 
passages  upon  which  the  most  stress  is  laid  as  a  proof  of 
infant  baptism.  In  the  same  way,  all  their  witnesses  will 
testify  against  them. 

The  next  passage,  relied  on  by  some,  though  Dr.  Sum- 
mers omits  it  in  his  list,  is  Acts  ii.  33  "  For  the  promise 


NO    PRECEPT    IN    THE    SCRIPTURES.  237 

is  to  you,  and  to  your  children,  and  to  all  that  are  afar 
off,  even  as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God  shall  cad."  Noth- 
ing suggests  this  as  a  support  of  infant  baptism,  but  the 
word  "  children."  If  infant  baptism  were  out  of  the 
question,  every  one  would  see,  from  the  use  of  the  word 
in  other  connections,  and  from  the  qualifying  clause 
joined  to  it,  that  "  children"  here  means  descendants. 
There  was  nothing  more  common  than  for  all  the  peo- 
ple, old  and  young,  to  be  called  the  children  of  Israel ; 
and  Peter,  in  the  next  chapter,  says  to  these  same  peo- 
ple he  was  addressing,  "Ye  are  the  children  of  the 
Prophets,"  &c.  The  meaning  evidently  is,  the  promise 
is  to  you  and  to  your  descendants,  and  to  the  Gentiles  that 
are  afar  off — even  to  as  many  of  you  and  your  descend- 
ants, and  the  Gentiles,  as  the  Lord  our  God  shall  call. 
The  promise  referred  not  to  baptism,  but  to  the  outpour- 
ing of  the  spirit  foretold  by  the  Prophet  Joel,"  And  it  shall 
come  to  pass  in  the  last  days,  saith  God,  I  will  pour  out  of 
my  spirit  upon  all  flesh :  and  your  sons  and  your  daugh- 
ters shall  prophesy,  and  your  young  men  shall  see 
visions,  and  your  old  men  shall  dream  dreams,"  Acts  ii. 
17. 


238  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 


CHAPTER   II. 

NO  EXAMPLE  IN  THE  SCRIPTURES  OF  THE  BAPTISM  OF  ANY 
OTHERS  THAN  BELIEVERS. 

Section  I. — Household  Baptisms.     Cornelius,  Lydia. 

The  most  casual  reader  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles, 
will  observe  that  in  every  case  where  the  apostles  admin- 
istered the  ordinance  of  baptism,  the  subjects  of  it,  where 
their  names  are  mentioned,  or  the  period  of  their  life 
unequivocally  stated,  are  those  who  are  old  enough  to 
understand  the  Gospel  and  to  believe  in  Christ.  Where 
the  subjects  are  plainly  indicated,  so  that  there  can  be 
no  dispute,  it  is  evident  that  the  apostles  conformed 
strictly  to  the  directions  of  the  commission  as  we  have 
explained  it.  In  no  place  is  there  an  unequivocal  state- 
ment, candid  pedobaptists  themselves  being  judges,  that 
infants  were  baptized.  On  the  day  of  Pentecost  the 
people  repented,  gladly  received  the  word,  were  added 
to  the  church,  and  walked  in  the  apostles'  doctrines  and 
in  the  apostles'  fellowship — none  of  which  can  be  pre- 
dicated of  infants.  In  Samaria,  "  when  they  believed 
Philip  preaching  the  things  concerning  the  kingdom  of 
God  and  the  name  of  Jesus,  they  were  baptized,  both 
men  and  women,"  Acts  viii.  12.  Both  men  and  women 
were  baptized,  but  not  one  hint  is  thrown  out  with 
reference  to  infants.  Philip  preaches  the  Gospel  to  the 
Eunuch,  and  requires  him  to  make  profession  of  faith  in 


NO    EXAMPLE    IN    THE    SCRIPTURES.  239 

Christ  before  he  will  consent  to  baptize  him — verses 
26-28.  Saul  and  Cornelius,  and  Lydia,  and  the  jailor, 
were  all  baptized  upon  a  profession  of  their  faith  in 
Christ.  Our  opponents,  however,  maintain  that  infants 
were  included  in  the  households  baptized  by  the  apos- 
tles. Now,  we  undertake  to  show  that  these  furnish  no 
example  for  their  practice.  It  is  only  necessery  to 
notice  the  terms  used  by  the  historian  in  the  accounts 
of  these  baptisms,  to  convince  any  unprejudiced  reader, 
that  infants  could  not  have  been  contained  in  the  house- 
holds baptized. 

1.  The  first  on  record  is  the  household  of  Cornelius. 
"  There  was  a  certain  man  in  Csesarea,  called  Cornelius, 

a  devout  man,  and  one  that  feared  God 

with  all  his  house"  Acts  x.  1,  2.  When  Peter  had 
arrived,  in  answer  to  the  summons  which  God  had 
directed,  Cornelius  said  :  "Now,  therefore,  are  we  all 
here  present  before  God  to  hear  all  things  that  are  com- 
manded thee  of  God,"  v.  33.  Peter  proceeds  to  preach 
the  Gospel  to  them.  "While  Peter  yet  spake  these 
words,  the  Holy  Ghost  fell  on  all  them  ivhich  heard  the 
ivord"  v.  44.  "They  heard  them  speak  with  tongues  and 
magnify  God"  v.  46.  And  then  succeeds  Peter's  in- 
quiry, "  Can  any  man  forbid  water,  that  these  should  not 
be  baptized  ivhich  have  received  the  Holy  Ghost  as  well  as 
we  ?  And  he  commanded  them  to  be  baptized  in  the 
name  of  the  Lord,"  vs.  47,  48.  Now  there  is  not-  one 
word  said  here  about  the  presence  of  infants,  but  every 
thing  to  imply  the  contrary. 

1st.  We  are  not  told  that  Cornelius  had  a  wife  even. 


240  BAPTISM   IN    ITS   MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

2d.  No  mention  is  made  of  any  children,  as  belonging 
to  his  household.  "  He  called  two  of  his  household  ser- 
vants, and  a  devout  soldier,  and  sent  them  to  Joppa," 
and,  as  far  as  the  record  goes,  it  does  not  hint  that  he 
possessed  any  other  than  adults,  as  members  of  his 
household. 

3d.  It  is  evident  that  all  those  baptized  feared  God — 
that  all  assembled  to  hear  all  things  that  God  had  com- 
manded— that  the  Holy  Ghost  fell  on  all  of  them,  and 
that  all  spake  with  tongues  and  magnified  God.  Xow 
we  ask  the  candid  reader  if  he  can  detect  one  infant 
voice  in  this  household,  as  they  are  in  concert  rejoicing 
and  praising  God  ?  And  yet  this  is  one  of  "  the  massy 
bulwarks  of  infant  baptism !"  The  veriest  child  can 
overthrow  it. 

2.  The  next  case  on  record  is  the  household  of  Lydia. 
"  And  a  certain  woman  named  Lydia,  a  seller  of  purple, 
of  the  city  of  Thyatira,  which  worshipped  God,  heard 
us  ;  whose  heart  the  Lord  opened,  that  she  attended 
unto  the  things  that  were  spoken  of  Paul.  And  when 
she  was  baptized,  and  her  household,  she  besought  us, 
saying  :  If  ye  have  judged  me  to  be  faithful  to  the  Lord, 
come  into  my  house  and  abide  there.  And  she  con- 
strained us,"  Acts  xvi.  14,  15.  This  is  all  that  is  said  of 
the  baptism  of  this  household,  and  the  reader  will  per- 
ceive that  no  mention  at  all  is  made  of  infants  by  name. 
Xow-,  upon  the  supposition  that  Lydia  was  a  virtuous 
woman,  it  will  be  necessary  to  prove  that  she  was  mar- 
ried— her  husband  alive  or  dead — and  that  she  had 
children  the  issue  of  the  marriage,  before  the  baptism  of 


NO    EXAMPLE    IN    THE    SCRIPTURES.  241 

her  household  can   qy en  u imply"  &  support  to  infant 
baptism.     Lydia  was   not  a   courtezan;  for  she  "wor- 
shipped God"  before  she  heard  Paul  preach.     If  she  had 
children,  then   she  was   either   a  married  woman   or  a 
widow.     Let  ns  see  how  either  supposition  will  consist 
with  the  account  given  of  her.     Let   us  suppose,  then, 
first,  that  she  had  a  husband  alive.     Now,  what  we  wish 
to  know  is,  where  was  her  husband  at  that  time  \ — at 
Philippi,  or  at  Thyatira  %     Let  us  suppose  he  was  at  the 
former  place.     Then  see  what  will  be  the  result.     First, 
"  Lydia's   husband"  was  in  fact  a  good-for-nothing  sort 
of  person,  and  is  so  characterized  by  "his  wife,"  and  by 
the  linly  Spirit — worthless,  in  fact,  because  he  permitted 
his  wife  to  bear  all  the  burthens   necessary  to  the  sup- 
port of  "  the  family,"  while  he  consents  to  be  a  nameless 
appendage  To  it.     His  wife  sells  purple,  but  he,  a  "loaf- 
ing," perhaps  a  drunken  vagabond,  does   nothing.     Or 
perhaps  an  easy  man,  without  energy,  he  gave  way,  in 
business  matters,  to  his  more  enterprising  wife,  and  staid 
at  home  attending  to  domestic  concerns  and  taking  care 
of  the   children.     On    the  supposition  that  he  was  at 
Philippi  his  wife 'and  the   Holy  Spirit  both  characterize 
him  as  a  good-for-nothing  man.     She  invites  the  apos- 
tles  into  "  my  house,"  not  into  our  house,  intimating, 
very  plainly,  that  it  made  no  difference  at  all  whether 
her  husband  would  be  glad  to  see  them  or  not,  and  that 
he  knew  his  place  better  than  to  presume  to  put  on  any 
airs  in  her  house  ;  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  by  speaking  of 
uher"  not  his  '•household,"  nor,  what  would  have  been 
a  little  better,  their  household.     Luke,  under  the*  direc 
16 


242  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

tion  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  thinks  Cornelius  and  the  Jailor 
entitled  to  be  considered  the  heads,  respectively,  of  their 
households,  and  he  was  in  company  with  Paul  who  took 
no  pains  to  conceal  the  opinion,  that  "  the  husband  is 
the  head  of  the  wife,"  and  that  she  should  submit  to  and 
reverence  her  husband,  (Eph.  v.,)  and  who  did  not  hesi- 
tate to  proclaim :  "  I  suffer  not  a  woman  to  usurp  au- 
thority over  the  man,"  (1  Tim.  ii.  12  ;)  but  we  find  him 
not  only  not  rebuking  Lydia,  for  her  "usurpation,"  and 
pleading  the  cause  of — I  do  not  know  what  his  name 
was — Lydia's  husband,  but  even  joining  with  hex  in 
treating  him  with  worse  than  contempt.  When  we  wish 
to  speak  contemptuously  of  a  husband  in  these  days,  we 
make  him  an  appendage  of  his  wife,  and  speak  of  them 
as  Mrs.  such-an-one  and  her  husband  ;  tins  nameless 
man  fell  even  beneath  contempt ;  for  he  is  not  noticed 
at  all.  He  must  have  been  a  very  mean  and  worthless, 
or  a  very  badly-treated  man. 

But  then  again,  in  the  next  place,  if  he  was  at  Philippi 
he  constituted  a  part,  however  insignificant,  of  "Lydia's 
household,"  and  was  baptized  also.  Now  if  that  was  the 
case,  even  though  he  was  a  very  uiveak  brother"  Luke 
would  certainly  have  said  something  about  him,  if  not 
before,  at  least  after,* his  wife — surely  he  would  not  con- 
temptuously, after  his  cont*ersion,  have  assigned  him  a 
position  among  "Lydia's  little  daughters  t"  Upon  the 
whole,  I  cannot  believe  that  Lydia's  nameless  husband 
was  with  her  at  Phiiippi. 

Suppose,  then,  he  was  at  Thyatira,  in  Asia  Minor ;  then, 
the  inquiry  presses  upon  us,  why  were  this  family  divided  \ 


NO    EXAMPLE    IN    THE    SCRIPTURES.  243 

Bat  I  must  tafcf  that  expression  back  ;  Dr.  Summers 
sa}Ts  it  is  not  good  English.  "There  can  be  no  family 
without  children.  A  man  and  his  wife  are  not  a family. 
When  a  young  woman  is  advanced  in  pregnancy,  slit,'  is 
(ina/«m//(/  way;'  when  her  child  is  born  she  has  a 
family  ;  vet  this  term  is  seldom  used  absolutely,  unless 
three  or  four  children  or  more  compose  the  family,"  p. 
232.  He  will  permit  us  to  use  the  term,  however,  if  Ave 
grant  that  the  children  were  divided — the  older  males 
remaining  with  their  father,  and  the  infant  and  female 
children  departing  with  their  mother;  and  he  "demands, 
therefore,  valid  reasons  why  the  family  attached  to 
their  mother,  Lydia,  was  not  a  young  family.  More- 
over, seeing  daughters  are  always  more  attached  to  their 
mothers  than  sons  are,  and  for  a  longer  term  of  years, 
I  demand  also  valid  reasons  for  denying  that  Lydia's 
family  were  daughters,  in  whole  or  in  part,  since  there 
is  the  greater  chance  that  they  were  daughters  rather 
than  sons,"  p.  234.  As  this  nameless  husband  of  Lydia 
then  could  not  himself  "be  in  a  family  way,"  and  as  his 
wife,  Dr.  Summers  intimates,  had  all  the  children  who 
alone  could  compose  the  family  with  her,  we  must  give 
up  the  mode  of  expression,  and  shape  our  question  in 
another  way.  Well,  then,  upon  the  supposition  that  he 
was  left  at  Thyatira,  what  good  reason  can  be  given  why 
this  man's  family and  here  I  came  in  one  of  com- 
mitting the  same  blunder  again  ;  but  how  can  I  help  it, 
when  I  partake  of  the  io-noranee  of  English  which  pre- 
vails in  this  remote  American  outskirt.  Before  we  start 
again,  let  us   endeavor  to  become  well  grounded  in  the 


244  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

philological   first  principles,   which   Dr.   Summers  lays 
down — 

1.  "When  a  yoiing  woman  (and  an  old  one  too  ?)  is 
advanced  in  pregnancy,  she  is  'in  tx  family  way.'  "  This 
is  going  back  to  preparatory  first  principles,  and  we 
think  we  understand  it. 

2.  "  When  her  child  is  born,  she  has  &  family."  This 
is  the  next  step,  and  the  conclusion ;  and  it  is  very  clear 
as  far  as  it  goes,  but  the  inference  from  it  is  very  strong 
that  a  man  can  have  no  family  at  all.  Thus  much, 
however,  we  learn  very  satisfactorily,  that  whenever  a 
neighbor  inquires  of  "  a  young  woman  "  (and  of  an  old 
one  two?)  with  one  child,  "  How  are  yowv  family  ?"  the 
meaning  is,  What  is  the  state  of  health  of  your  child  ? 
But  to  return — 

Upon  the  supposition  that  "  Lydia's  husband  "  was  at 
Thyatira,  upon  what  principles  can  it  be  explained  that 
his  wife  and  "her  family"  left  him,  and  crossed  the 
^Egsean  Sea  into  Macedonia,  four  hundred  miles  or  more 
from  home,  to  engage  in  selling  purple  ?  Is  it  a  com- 
mon thing — nay,  was  such  a  case  ever  heard  of,  that  a 
woman  "which  worshipped  God"  should  leave  her  hus- 
band at  home,  and,  with  a  "large  family  of  young  chil- 
dren, daughters  in  whole  or  in  part,"  go  off  to  a  foreign 
country  three  or  four  hundred  miles,  to  engage  among 
total  strangers  in  selling  purple,  or  in  any  other  busi- 
ness? What  mother  would  undertake  such  a  journey 
with  a  large  "family"  of  "little  daughters,"  exposing 
them  and  herself  not  only  to  fatigue,  but  to  danger, 
among  strangers,  without  a  protector  ?     And  what  hope 


NO    EXAMPLE    IN    THE    SCRIPTURES.  245 

could  she  have  of  realizing*  any  profit  from  her  traffic, 
encumbered  as  she  was  by  a  large  number  of  little  daugh- 
ters ?  The  large  majority  of  mothers  find  that  it  is 
about  as  much  as  they  can  do  to  look  after  the  interests 
of  a  numerous  offspring  at  home,  though  the  greater 
part  of  their  time  be  devoted  to  that  object.  And  then 
to  think  of  the  scandal  of  the  supposed  course.  A  little 
while  ago  Lydia  was  too  delicate  to  go  into  the  water 
with  "  one  of  the  other  sex,"  but  here  she  recklessly  vio- 
lates all  propriety,  and  boldly  braves  public  opinion  by 
tearing  herself  from  her  husband's  bed  and  board,  and 
setting  up  for  herself  an  independent  business  and  resi- 
dence in  a  foreign  country.  Nor  can  she  be  excused  on 
the  ground  that  the  business  in  which  she  embarked 
was  lucrative  ;  for  if  Lydia  was  the  woman  Dr.  Sum- 
mers takes  her  to  be,  she  could  have  sent  her  husband 
on  the  business  and  compelled  Mm  to  attend  to  it.  Be- 
sides the  outrage  she  would  have  committed  against 
public  opinion  and  upon  her  disconsolate  husband,  by 
her  abandonment  of  him,  think  of  her  cruelty  to  the 
fond  father,  in  forcibly  taking  his  beloved  little  daughters 
from  his  embraces.  Reasoning  upon  our  author's  prin- 
ciples, we  all  know  how  natural  it  is  for  fathers  to  be 
specially  attached  to  their  little  girls.  For  I  am  bound 
to  yield  to  Dr.  Summers's  opinion  as  to  the  sex  of  these 
children  he  has  discovered  with  Lydia  ;  I  am  no  more 
able  to  give  him  "  valid  reasons  "  to  show  that  they 
were  not  "  daughters,  in  whole  or  in  part,"  than  I  am 
to  furnish  the  same^Upd  of  reasons  to  show  that  the  eyes 
of  the  "  man  in  the  moon"  are  not  of  a  pea-green  color. 


246  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

To  suppose  that  Lydia's  husband  was  at  Philippi  is 
to  reflect  on  him — to  suppose  he  was  left  at  Thyatira 
is  to  reflect  on  her.  On  the  whole  we  may  conclude 
that  if  she  ever  had  a  husband,  he  must  at  that  time 
have  been  dead.  If  Lydia  had  a  large  number  of 
daughters  she  must  have  been,  at  the  time  of  her  bap- 
tism, a  widow. 

Now,  if  Lydia  was  a  widow,  "  her  husband "  died 
either  at  Thyatira  or  somewhere  else  absent  from  her,  or 
at  Philippi,  where  he  was  perhaps  engaged  in  the  busi- 
ness which  devolved  upon  her  after  hte  death.  The 
formes?  cannot  be  true,  for  the  reasons  given  above  to 
show  that  Lydia,  who  "worshipped  God,"  could  not 
have  abandoned  him  for  the  purpose  indicated — though 
such  treatment  was  well  nigh  calculated,  poor  man  !  to 
break  his  heart.  Nor  could  he  have  died  at  Philippi, 
for  then  all  those  "  daughters,  in  whole  or  in  part," 
would  have  vanished  into  the  nothingness  from  which 
Dr.  Summers  called  them.  The  whole  argument  going 
to  show  the  sex  of  the  children  that  were  "  attached  to 
their  mother  Lydia,"  is  based  upon  the  assumption  "that 
daughters  are  always  more  attached  to  their  mothers 
than  sons  are,"  p.  234,  and,  therefore,  it  assumes  that  the 
husband  and  father  was  left  behind  somewhere. 

Now  I  do  not  know  one  word  about  the  ages  and  the 
characters  of  the  persons  composing  Lydia's  household. 
!;  may  have  been  composed  entirely,  like  a  part  at  least 
of  the  household  of  Cornelius,  of  servants  and  persons  in 
her  employ— or  it  may  have  bee^^oade  up  entirely  of 
her  children,  sons  or  daughters,  or  both  ;  but  of  whom- 


NO    EXAMPLE    IX    THE    SCRIPTURES.  247 

soever  composed,  I  am  well  assured  that  they  were  all 
old  enough  to  understand  and  believe  the  gospel;  for, 

1,  The  commission  prohibited  the  administration  of  bap- 
tism to  any  but  to  those  exercising  faith  in  Christ;  and 

2,  Because  Luke  called  them  afterwards  "brethren,"  Acts 
xvi.  40.  "  And  they  went  out  of  the  prison,  and  entered 
into  the  house  of  Lydia :  and  when  they  had  seen  the 
brethren,  they  comforted  them  and  departed."  Dr.  S., 
however,  maintains  that  "these  brethren  were  neither 
servants  nor  sons  of  Lydia.  They  were,  probably,  no 
other  than  Luke  and  Timothy,  who  sojourned  at  Lydia's 
house,  during  the  imprisonment  of  Paul  and  Silas,"  p. 
33.  That  is,  Luke  speaking  of  himself  and  Timothy, 
says,  not  when  they  had  seen  us,  but  when  they  had 
seen  the  brethren,  they  comforted  them,/ 

We  have  seen  how  much  Dr.  Summers's  English  criti- 
cism has  done  towards  the  support  of  Lydia' s  "numer- 
ous young  family — her  daughters  in  whole  or  in  part ;" 
let  us  next  see  what  marvels  his  Greek  criticism  can  ac- 
complish :  "  When  the  apostle  baptized  Stephanas 
and  Lydia,  he  baptized,  also,  their  families.  The  term 
oikos  means  family,  as  distinct  from  oikia,  household." 
"  Thus,  he  baptized  the  oikos,  the  family  of  Stephanas ; 
but  he  speaks  of  the  oikia,  the  household,  as  addicting 
themselves  to  the  ministry  of  the  saints,  that  is,  per- 
forming the  duties  of  hospitality  towards  them.  Such 
services,  would  not,  of  course,  be  restricted  to  Stephanas, 
with  his  wife  and  children,  the  oikos  of  Stephanas,  but 
would  be  rendered  also  by  the  servants  of  the  family,  in 
which  case  the  word  oikia  is  proper  to  be  used,  and  it  is 


248  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

used  accordingly,"  p.  32.  "  Oikos  imports  the  family,  and 
oi&ia  the  attendants  on  a  family,  the  servants  of  vari- 
ous kinds,"  p.  231.  He  says  he  quotes  this  u  from  Tay- 
lor's unanswered  and  unanswerable  work  on  Apostolic 
jBaptis?n."  Now,  this  dissertation  is  precisely  upon  a 
par  with  that  on  the  English  word  family ;  nay,  it  is 
even  more  fanciful,  as  we  shall  proceed  to  show  : 

1.  The  Greek  words  oikos  and  oikia  are  used  inter- 
changeably in  the  New  Testament.  Luke  (vii.  6)  calls 
the  Centurion's  house  oikia,  and  in  v.  10  he  calls  it 
oikos.  Christ  says  (Luke  x.  5,  1) — "  Into  whatsoever 
oikia  ye  enter,  first  say,  peace  be  unto  this  oikos ;  and 
in  the  same  oikia,  remain,"  &c.  Luke  (viii.  41)  calls 
Jarius's  house  oikos,  and  in  v.  51  he  calls  the  same  oikia. 
In  John  xi.  20,  the  house  of  Martha  and  Mary  is  called 
oikos,  and  in  v.  31  it  is  called  oikia.  The  Jailor's  house, 
in  Acts  xvi.  32,  is  called  oikia,  and  in  v.  34  it  is  called 
oikos.  Christ  calls  his  Fathers  house  both  oikos  and 
oikia,  John  ii.  16  and  xiv.  2.  And  so  we  might  go  on 
multiplying  quotations.  It  is  wonderful  that  the  learned 
writer  and  the  learned  Tmoter  of  "  the  unanswered  and 
unanswerable  work .  on  Apostolic  Baptism1  overlooked 
these  things. 

2.  Let  us,  in  addition,  apply  our  author's  definitions 
to  some  few  of  the  passages  in  which  the  words  occur, 
and  see  what  will  be  the  interesting  result.  Oikos,  it 
will  be  recollected,  means  family,  including  the  idea  of 
young  children,  or  the  residence  of  the  family ,  and  oikia, 
servants  or  attendants,  or  the  residence  of  servants. 
Very  well ;  let  us  see:     Matt.  x.  12,  13 — "And  when 


NO    EXAMPLE    IN    THE    SCRIPTURES.  249 

ye  come  into  a  oikia,  kitchen,  salute  it.  And  if  the 
oikia,  kitchen,  he  worthy,  let  your  peace  come  upon  it," 
Szc.  Matt.  xii.  25 — "Every  oikia,  kitchen,  divided 
against  itself  shall  not  stand."  Luke  xi.  17,  pronounces 
the  same  consequences  to  the  occupants  of  the  family 
mansion — "  And  a  oikos,  family,  children  of  a  family, 
the  occupants  of  a  family  mansion,  divided  against  a 
oikos  falleth."  Christ  says — "In  my  Father's  oikia, 
kitchen,  are  many  mansions!"  Matt.  xix.  29 — "And 
every  one  that  hath  forsaken  oikia,  kitchens,  &c,  for  my 
name's  sake,  &c,  shall  inherit  everlasting'  life."  2  Cor. 
v.  2 — "  For  we  know  that  if  our  earthly  oikia,  kitchen, 
of  this  tabernacle  be  dilsolved,  we  have,  &c,  a  oikia,  a 
kitchen,  not  made  with  hands  eternal  in  the  heavens." 
2  John  x. — "  If  there  come  any  unto  you,  and  bring  not 
this  doctrine,  receive  him  not  into  your  oikia,  kitchen, 
neither  bid  him  God  speed."  John  iv.  53 — "  So  the 
father  knew  that  it  was  at  the  same  hour,  in  the  which 
Jesus  said  unto  him,  thy  son  liveth  ;  and  himself  be- 
lieved and  his  whole  oikia,  kitchen,  or  househouid  ser- 
vants," i.  e.,  the  mother  and  children  were  not  at  all 
affected.  1  Cor.  xi.  22 — "  What  \  have  we  not  oikia, 
kitchens,  to  eat  and  to  drink  in  V  But  why  need  we 
multiply  quotations?  The  result  is  very  interesting,  and 
the  temptation  is  very  strong  to  apply  the  principle  to 
the  numberless  other  examples  ;  but  we  must  forbear. 
The  fancied  distinction  between  the  Greek  words  oikos 
and  oikia  is  all  the  evidence  our  author  has  to  prove  the 
existence  of  infants  in  the  household  of  Lydia.  The 
plain   English  word  household  does  not  necessarily  in- 


250  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

elude  infants,  and  we  ask  the  common-sense  reader  if  it 
has  not  been  conclusively  shown  that  the  Greek  word 
oikos  testifies,  as  clearly  as  such  an  outlandish  word 
can  testify — "  Infants  are  not  necessarily  contained  in 
me." 

To  j)rove  infant  baptism  from  Lydia's  household,  it 
must  be  shown  that  she  had  ever  been  married — that 
she  had  children — that  her  children  were  any  of  them 
young  enough  to  be  entitled  to  the  faith  of  their  parent. 
Now,  none  of  these  things  have  been  shown,  nor  can 
they  be.  Thus  goes  another  of  "  the  massy  bulwarks  by 
which  infant  baptism  is  defended  !" 

Section  II. — Household  Baptisms,  continued.  The 
Jailor,  d'c. 

The  next  case  on  record  is  the  Jailor's  household  : 
"  And  the  keeper  of  the  prison,  awaking  out  of  his  sleep, 
and  seeing  the  prison  doors  open,  he  drew  out  his  sword 
and  would  have  killed  himself,  supposing  that  the  prison- 
ers had  been  fled.  But  Paul  cried  out  with  a  loud  voice, 
saying,  Do  thyself  no  harm,  for  we  are  all  here.  Then 
he  called  for  a  light,  and  sprang  in,  and  came  trembling 
and  fell  down  before  Paul  and  Silas  and  brought  them 
out,  and  said  :  Sirs,  what  must  I  do  to  be  saved  ?  And 
they  said,  believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  thou  shalt 
l>e  saved  and  thy  house.  And  they  spake  unto  him  the 
word  of  the  Lord,  and  to  all  that  were  in  his  house. 
And  he  took  them  the  same  hour  of  the  night,  and 
washed  their  stripes,  and  was  baptized,  he  and  all  his, 
straightway.     And  when  he  had  brought  them  into  his 


NO    EXAMPLE    IN    THE    SCRIPTURES.  251 

house,  he   set  meat  before  them,  and  rejoiced,  believing 
in  God,  with  all  his  house." 

1.  He  and  all  his  were  baptized,  but  to  him  and  to 
all  that  were  in  his  house,  Paul  spake  the  word  of  the 
Lord.  All  in  the  one  case  is  the  same  as  all  in  the 
other.  I  do  not  know  that  he  had  any  children.  I  do 
not  even  know  that  he  had  a  wife,  nor  can  any  one  make 
it  appear  from  the  record.  Suppose,  however,  he  had 
children,  and  that  one  or  more  of  them  were  infants  ; 
then  what  is  the  result?  Paul  spake. the  word  of  the 
Lord  to  infants  !  The  el^jquakeand  the  appalling"  cir- 
cumstances attending  it,  had,  doubtless,  aroused  from 
their  slumbers  all  the  adult  members  of  the  household, 
but  the  unconscious  infant  was  still  locked  in  sweet  re- 
pose, or,  perhaps,  unconscious  of  the  impending  danger, 
it  was  fretting  on  account  of  the  unseemly  disturbance. 
Paul,  in  answer  to  the  question  of  the  Jailor,  had  in- 
formed him  of  the  means  by  which  not  only  himself, 
but  his  household  also,  might  be  saved.  The  affection- 
ate father,  not  willing  to  monopolize  the  blessing,  des- 
patches the  nurse  to  bring,  from  its  cradle,  his  "  infant 
seed."  It  is  now  after,  the  hour  of  midnight.  Imagine, 
then,  the  profound  "  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles"  standing 
before  this  drowsy  and  fretful  infant,  and  gravely  explain- 
ing to  it  the  way  of  salvation,  through  a  crucified  Sa- 
viour,  while  the  nurse  is  vainly  endeavoring  to  keep  it 
awake,  or  the  mother  to  pacify  its  clamors  for  the  breast. 
Imagine  these  things  !<>  be  true,  and  then  tell  me  what 
foundation  Paul  had  for  the  declaration — "  When  I  be- 
came a  man  I  put  away  childish  things !"     All   in  the 


252  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

house  were   baptized  : — but  all   in  the   house  had  the 
word  of  the  Lord  preached  to  them  previously. 

2.  All  the  members  of  the  Jailor's  household  were 
baptized,  but  the  same  "  all  "  believed  in  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  before  submitting  to  the  ordinance.  Now,  if  the 
puling  infant  could  have  believed  in  any  thing  at  all,  ir 
would  have  been  only  in  the  unreasonable  molestation 
to  which  it  was  subjected,  and,  no  doubt,  it  would  have 
given  a  most  unmistakable  manifestation  of  that  faith. 
The  record  states  4h at  the  household  Avere  baptized,  not 
on  \\ui  faith  of  the  head,  buppfe  their  own  faith.  And 
do  tell  me,  can  an  infant  exercise  faith  in  Christ  ? 

3.  All  in  the  Jailor's  house  not  only  believed  and  were 
baptized,  but  rejoiced,  as  the  Ethiopian  Eunuch,  having 
"the  answer  of  a  good  conscience."  Can  an  infant  re- 
joice ?  I  do  not  know  that  this  class  of  human  beings 
can  experience  an  emotion  that  rises  as  high  as  joy,  but 
I  have  no  doubt  that  when  it  was  restored  back  to  its 
cradle,  if  it  had  not  been  fretted  too  much  in  the  process, 
it  experienced  no  little  relief  that  the,  to  it,  unmeaning 
and  foolish  ceremony  was  over. 

All  the  Jailor's  household  were  not  only  baptized,  but 
they  heard  the  Gospel,  they  believed  in  Christ,  and  they 
rejoiced,  having  "  the  answer  of  a  good  conscience,"  and 
none  of  these  things  can  be  predicated  of  an  infant. 

Dr.  Summers  maintains  not  only  that  the  Jailor  had 
children  in  his  family,  but  that  he  had  numbers  of  them, 
and,  my  dear  reader,  how  do  you  suppose  he  proves  it  ? 
Let  him  speak  for  himself:  "The  Philippian  jailor, 
rejoiced,  believing  in  God,  with  all  his  numerous  family. 


NO    EXAMPLE    IN    THE    SCRIPTURES.  253 

He  could  not  have  been  an  old  man.  His  first  intention 
after  the  earthquake — '  He  drew  his  sword,  *nd  would 
have  killed  himself — is  not  the  character  of  age,  which 
is  more  deliberate  in  its  determinations.  The  action  is 
that  of  a  fervid  mind.  In  like  manner,  'he  called  for 
lights  and  sprang  in.'  The  original  well  expresses  the 
strenuous  action  of  a  man  in  the  vigor  of  life ;  yet  this 
man  had  a  numerous  family,  which,  according  to  nature, 
must  have  contained  young  children,"  j).  236.  "Scrip- 
ture uses  the  word  all  and  whole,  to  import  many — nu- 
merous.'1'' "  The  consequence  is  inevitable,  that  families 
distinguished  by  the  word  all  or  whole,  had  many 
children,  since  children  are  the  family,"  p.  235.  Let  us 
trace  up  the  different  steps  of  this  argument,  and  while 
we  are  doing  so,  I  beg  the  reader  to  preserve  his  gravity : 
T  will  try : 

I.  The  Jailor  had  children.  How  do  you  know? 
Why,  he  had  a  family,  and  "  there  can  be  no  family 
without  children,"  as  was  so  clearly  shown  a  few  pages 
back.  It  is  of  no  importance  for  us  to  know  whether 
his  wife  was  alive  or  dead,  or  whether  he  ever  had  a 
wife;  for  "a  man  and  his  wife  are  not  a  family? 
Whether  "his  family"  were  born  in  lawful  wedlock  or 
in  adultery,  we  need  mot  inquire.  It  is  enough  for  us  to 
know  that  he  had  a  family,  and  "children  are  the 
family."  Let  no  one  object  to  this,  that  Luke  uses  oikos 
and  oikia  interchangebly  in  the  record,  and  that  tin- 
pedobaptist  translators  of  our  present  version  render  it 
house  or  household.  Let  no  one  aunoy  us  by  the  cavil- 
ing question — "  Suppose  the  Jailor  had  a  wife,  and  there 


254  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

were  living  with  him  his  or  her  mother,  and  a  half-dozen 
of  their  brothers  and  sisters  as  his  wards,  besides  a  score 
of  men-servants  and  maiu-seryants,  would  he  have  had  a 
family  then  ?"  It  is  enough  for  us  to  know  that  he  had 
vl  family,  and  "  children  are  the  family." 

2.  The  Jailor  had  a  numerous  family.  And  how  do 
we  know  this?  Why  the  inspired  writer  says  u  all  his" 
were  baptized  with  him,  and  "Scripture  uses  the  word 
all  to  import  many — numerous."  "  The  consequence  is 
inevitable,  that  families  distinguished  by  the  word  all, 
had  many  children."  That  is,  if  his  family  had  consisted 
of  two  children,  and  they  had  been  baptized  together 
with  their  parents  and  all  the  adults,  all  the  family 
would  not  have  been  baptized  !  This  is  as  clear  as 
the  "unanswered  and  unanswerable  argument"  can 
make  it. 

3.  Some  of  the  Jailor's  children  must  have  been 
young  children.  And  how  do  we  know  that?  Why, 
the  father  was  in  the  prime  of  life.  He  'Iran  his  sword. 
An  old  man  never  does  that  ;  he  takes  a  sword  out  of 
the  scabbard  in  some  other  way,  and  without  drawing 
it!  He  would  have  killed  MfaSfif,  Whoever  heard  of 
auv  one  that  committed  suicide  after  the  prime  of  life? 
Old  men,  as  a  general  thing,  know  better  than  that,  and 
are  more  cautious.  He  showed  the  possession  of  a  u fern  id 
mind."  Don't  tell  me  that  he  may  have  been  a  man 
advanced  in  life,  whose  "  fervor"  was  but  another  name 
for  his  fear  and  agitation,  on  account  of  impending  dan- 
ger. For  we  "  demand  valid  reasons"  to  show  that  he 
was  not  as  much  accustomed  to  earthquakes  as  the  old 


NO    EXAMPLE    IN    THE    SCRIPTURES.  255 

lady  in  the  Mississippi  valley,  who,  when  her  guest  mani- 
fested alarm  at  a  sudden  shock,  said,  "  Don't  be  scared, 
its  only  the  earthquake."  He  sprang  in,  ivhich  expresses 
a  strenuous  action.  Who  ever  knew  a  man  beyond  his 
prime  to  accelerate  his  pace  for  any  reason?  The  chain 
of  argument,  then,  is  complete. 

1.  His  family  was  made  up  entirely  of  children,  "since 
children  are  the  family  !" 

2.  He  had  numerous  children,  for  all  his  children 
Ave  re  baptized,  and  all  could  not  have  been  if  there  had 
.been  ojily  a  few  ! 

3.  Some  of  his  children  were  young  children,  for  he 
was  a  young  man  of  "  fervid  mind  "  and  "  strenuous  ac- 
tion," and,  consequently,  "  according  to  nature,  his 
numerous  family  must  have  contained  young  children." 
Now,  "all  his"  were  baptized;  consequently,  this  case 
of  the  Jailor  rears  up  a  "  massy  bulwark  of  infant  bap- 
tism," which  we  should  like  to  see  any  man  overthrow ! 

My  readers  must  not  become  disgusted  with  me,  for  I 
must  bring  myself  down  to  the  level  of  Dr.  Summers's 
argument  before  I  can  reply  to  it. 

But  why  need  I  go  through  the  list  of  household  bap- 
tisms in  detail  \  They  all  contain  statements  that  ought 
to  show  conclusively,  that  no  infants  were  baptized  in 
them.  Thus,  the  household  o'i  Stephanas  "addicted 
themselves  to  the  ministry  of  the  saints,"  1  Cor.  xiv.  15, 
10,  and  xvi.  15.  And  "  Crispus,  the  chief  ruler  of  the 
synagogue,  believed  on  the  Lord  with  all  his  house.'' 
Acts  xviii.  8. 

The  distinguished  pedobaptist  historian,  Neander,  con- 


256  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

fesses— "  We  cannot  prove  that  the  apostles  ordained 
infant  baptism  ;  from  those  places  where  the  baptism  of 
a  whole  family  is  mentioned,  as  in  Acts  xvi.  33,  1  Cor. 
i.  16,  we  can  draw  no  such  conclusion,  because  the  in- 
quiry is  still  to  be  made,  whether  there  were  any  chil- 
dren in  these  families,  of  such  an  age,  that  they  were  not 
capable  of  any  intelligent  reception  of  Christianity  ;  for 
this  is  the  only  point  on  winch  the  case  turns,"  Ch. 
Hist.,  p.  198. 

But  here  we  are  met  with  an  aryumentum  ad  homi- 
nem:  "  Here  let  me  ask,  was  it  ever  known  that  a  case 
of  family  baptism  occurred  under  the  direction  of  a  Bap- 
tist minister,"  Dr.  Miller,  p.  24.     To  this  I  answer : 

1.  Suppose  such  a  case  had  never  happened  among 
Baptists  of  the  present  day,  would  that  make  it  impro- 
bable that  whole  families  were  converted  at  the  time  of 
the  first  planting  of  Christianity,  when  God  operated  by 
Christ's  apostles  with  miraculous  power  ? 

2.  If  you  have  not  heard  of  such  a  case,  however,  it  is 
your  own  fault,  for  such  cases  are  numerous. 

u  Should  we  not  think  it  very  singular  to  find  accounts 
of  family  baptisms  in  a  history  of  Baptist  Missions  V 
Dr.  Woods,  p.  79.  I  think  it  is  likely  you  would,  but 
that  does  not  render  the  existence  of  such  accounts  im- 
possible. "  There  were  eight  baptized  families  belong- 
ing to  the  Karen  Baptist  Mission,  before  it  was  as  old  as 
the  Apostolic  Mission  when  the  family  of  Lydia  was  bap- 
tized, The  Christian  Watchman,  of  Jan.  29th,  1841, 
presents  authentic  proof  of .  the  existence,  at  that  time, 
of  upwards  of  fifty  baptized  households  connected  with 


INFANT    BAPTISM    CANNOT    BE    SUSTAINED.  257 

Baptist  churches — every  member  of  whom  was  baptized 
on  profession  of  faith  and  added  to  the  church." — Crow- 
ell's  Ch.  Mem.  Man.,  Boston,  1847,  p.  158,  as  quoted 
by  Dr.  J.  L.  Reynolds. 


CHAPTER  III. 


INFANT    BAPTISM    CANNOT    BE    SUSTAINED    BY    INFERENCE 
AND    ANALOGY. 

Section  I. — Female  Communion.  Change  of  the 
Sabbath. 

We  have  thus  gone  through  the  Scriptures,  and  we 
ask  the  unprejudiced  reader  if  it  has  not  been  shown 
conclusively  that  their  is  neither  precept  nor  example, 
for  infant  baptism,  in  all  God's  word.  The  commission 
of  the  Saviour  is  limited  to  the  baptism  of  believers, 
and  examples  of  none  other  than  such — both  men  and 
women — are  recorded.  Nowhere  do  we  find  it  hinted, 
much  less  stated,  that  infants  are  entitled  to  this  ordi- 
nance. No  precept  do  we  find  addressed  to  parents, 
enjoining  upon  them  to  see  to  it,  that  their  infants  secure 
it  as  a  privilege  to  which  they  are  entitled.  And  this 
is  the  more  remarkable,  too,  when  the  advantages  of  the 
17 


258  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

ordinance  to  children  are  so  numerous,  if  Dr.  Summers's 
testimony  be  true ;  and  nowhere  in  the  early  planting 
of  Christianity,  do  we  find  Christian  parents  dedicating 
their  infant  children  by  baptism,  or  the  apostles  exhort- 
ing them  to  do  so,  or  even  alluding  in  the  slightest  way 
to  the  subject,  either  in  their  addresses  or  in  their  writ- 
ings. And  this,  too,  is  not  because  the  cases  of  little 
children  are  over  looked  in  God's  word.  The  Saviour 
loved  them  and  proclaimed,  "Sutler  little  children  to 
come  unto  me  and  forbid  them  not" — the  Israelites  were 
commanded  to  circumcise  them,  and  instructed,  too, 
minutely,  even  as  to  the  day — their  presence  with  the 
five  thousand  men,  (Matt.  xiv.  21,)  and  with  the  four 
thousand,  (xv.  38,)  miraculously  fed  by  Christ,  is  noted. 
The  Holy  Spirit  does  not  even  overlook  them  in  stating 
by  whom  Paul  was  accompanied  out  of  the  city  of  Tyre, 
when  he  was  on  his  way  to  Jerusalem  for  the  last  time — 
"And  they  all  brought  us  on  our  way,  with  wives  and 
children"  Acts  xxi.  5.  Is  it  not  remarkable,  upon  the 
supposition  that  their  baptism  is  a  scriptural  institution, 
that  the  Bible  is  so  profoundly  silent  on  the  subject? 
This  very  fact  ought  to  be  decisive  with  every  unpreju- 
diced mind.  And  upon  what  principle  can  those  who 
acknowledge  that  there  is  neither  precept  nor  example 
for  it,  attempt,  consistently,  to  "make  it  out  in  some 
other  way  ?" 

But,  here  it  is  answered  that  there  are  other  things 
as  important  as  infant  baptism,  for  which  there  is  no 
express  precept  and  no  apostolic  precedent,  which  we 
ourselves  have  to  make   out   in  some  other  way  :     "It 


INFANT    BAPTISM    CANNOT    BE    SUSTAINED.         259 

is  nowhere  recorded  that  the  apostles  administered  the 
Lord's  Supper  to  women,  yet  no  one  doubts  that  they 
did,  and  no  one  thinks  of  excluding  women  from  this 
ordinance,  because  of  this  omission  in  the  record,"  Sum- 
mers p.  49.  The  same,  in  principle,  is  asserted  with 
reference  to  the  change  of  the  Sabbath,  or  the  substi- 
tution of  the  first  for  the  seventh  day  as  a  day  of  rest, 
p.  179, 

Now,  if  you  can  prove  to  us  that  female  communion 
and  the  substitution  of  the  Lord's  day  for  the  Jewish 
Sabbath  rests  on  the  same  foundation  with  infant  bap- 
tism, you  will  convince  us,  not  that  the  latter  is  a  scrip- 
tural institution,  but  that  we  have  violated  God's  word 
in  admitting  females  to  the  communion,  and  in  changing 
the  day  of  rest ;  and  we  will  amend  our  ways  by  going 
back,  as  speedily  as  possible,  to  the  scriptural  rule. 
Nay,  we  will  go  further.  If  you  can  prove  to  us  that 
there  is  as  much  scriptural  authority  for  infant  baptism 
as  we  can  show  in  behalf  of  these  things  you  place  in  the 
same  category  with  it,  we  pledge  ourselves  to  advocate 
it  and  to  practice  it ! 

1. — We  are  prepared  to  show  that  the  apostles  did  ad- 
minister the  Lord's  Supper  to  "emales,  and  did  enjoin  it 
upon  them  to  partake  of  it : 

1st.  Females  were  baptized  and  added  to  the  churches. 
Lydia  was  baptized,  "and  believers  were  the  more  added 
to  the  church,  multitudes,  both  of  men  and  ivomen" 
Acts  v.  14.  "But  when  they  believed  Philip,  preaching 
the  things  concerning  the  kingdom  of  God,  they  were 
baptized  both  men  and  women"  viii.  12.     You  can  find 


260  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

no  positive  statement  in  the  Scriptures  that  infants  were 
baptized  and  added  to  the  church. 

2d.  Females  constituted  a  part  of  their  worshipping 
assemblies.  "  These  all  continued  with  one  accord  in 
prayer  and  supplication,  with  the  women  and  Mary  the 
mother  of  Jesus,"  i.  14.  And  this  you  cannot  say  of 
infants. 

3d.  The  Apostle  Paul  enjoined  it  upon  females  as  well 
as  upon  males  to  partake  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  because 
(1)  he  directed  his  injunction  to  the  Corinthian  Church, 
which  was  composed,  in  part,  of  females  :  "  For  I  have 
received  of  the  Lord  that  which  also  I  delivered  unto 
yo<'  1  Cor.  xi.  23.  "For  we  (Who?  Believers.  And 
we  have  a  positive  statement  that  females  were  believers) 
being  many,  are  one  bread  and  one  body ;  for  we  are 
all  partakers  of  that  one  bread."  All  who  compose 
the  members  of  Christ's  mystical  body  are  spiritually 
united  to  him  by  faith.  Now,  we  are  expressly  told  that 
females  possessed  faith ;  therefore,  females  are  members 
of  that  one  body,  and  were  exhorted  to  partake  of  the 
bread,  which  was  an  emblem  of  the  body  of  Christ 
broken.  Again,  of  a  like  nature  is  the  statement  of 
Luke,  Acts  ii.  42,  44 — "  And  they  continued  steadfastly 
in  the  apostles'  doctrine  and  fellowship,  and  in  breaking 
of  bread  and  in  prayers.  And  all  that  believed  were 
together  and  had  all  things  common."  Now,  besides 
the  reasonable  certainty  that  many  of  those  who  believed 
on  the  day  of  Pentecost  were  females,  we  are  distinctly 
told  that  some  of  those  who  constituted  the  "all" 
in  Jerusalem  were  women,  Acts  i.  14.     And  we  are 


INFANT    BAPTISM    CANNOT    BE    SUSTAINED  261 

assured  that  some  of  those  who  professed  to  have  all 
things  common,  were  Ananias  and  Sapphira,  his  wife, 
v.  1.  Again,  xx.  7 — "And  upon  the  first  day  of  the 
week,  when  the  disciples  came  together  to  break  bread,'1 
&c.  All  those  who  heard  and  believed  the  Gospel  were 
disciples;  females  heard  and  believed  the  Gospel ;  there- 
fore, females  were  disciples,  and  constituted  a  part  of 
those  who,  at  Troas,  came  together  to  break  bread.  Be- 
sides, Luke  says  expressly,  that  females  were  disciples  : 
Acts  ix.  36 — "  Now,  there  was  at  Joppa  a  certain  disci- 
ple named  Tabitha,  which  is,  by  interpretation,  called 
Dorcas,"  &c.  But  we  will  give  you  something  more 
definite  than  this — though,  if  you  could  produce  even 
as  strong  an  argument  as  this,  in  fa^or  of  infant  baptism, 
we  would  surrender  to  it. 

The  Apostle  Paul  enjoined  it  upon  females  as  well  as 
upon  males  to  partake  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  because  (2) 
he  used  terms  which,  being  of  the  common  gender,  ex- 
press both  males  and  females.  In  1  Cor.  xi.  28,  the 
word  for  man  is  anthropos,  which  can  mean  either  a 
male  or  a  female,  and  not  aner,  which  means  a  male 
only.  In  the  previous  part  of  the  chapter,  he  points  out 
the  duties  severally  of  males  and  females.  When  refer- 
ren.ce  is  made  to  the  duties  exclusively  of  males  the  word 
aner  is  invariably  used  ;  see  verses  3,  4,  7,  8,  9,  11,  12, 
14.  As  soon,  however,  as  the  Lord's  Supper  becomes 
the  topic  of  discourse,  he  uses  the  term  anthropos,  which 
includes  both  male  and  female.  "Let  a  man,  anthropos, 
examine  himself,  and  so  let  him  eat  of  that  bread  and 
<lrink  of  that  cup."     The  same  word  (anthropos)  is  used 


262  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

by  Christ  when  he  speaks  of  himself  as  the  Son  of  Man, 
when  we  know  that  he,  the  seed  of  the  woman,  was 
not  the  son  of  Joseph,  but  of  Mary.  Deny  this  interpre- 
tation of  the  word  anthropos,  and  we  will  at  once  run 
you  into  the  most  inextricable  difficulties.  Deny  it,  and 
you  cannot  prove,  excepting-  by  inference,  and  not  even 
by  that  conclusively,  that  females  can  be  saved  !  There 
is  "one  mediator  between  God  and  man,"  anthropos  ; 
but  there  is  no  mediator  for  the  woman.  "  Except  a  man 
{tis,  another  Greek  word  that  is  both  masculine  and  femi- 
nine) be  born  again,  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God;" 
but  a  woman  may  see  the  kingdom  without  the  new 
birth.  "If  any  man  (tis)  be  in  Christ  he  is  a  new  crea- 
ture," but  a  woman  could  not  be  a  new  creature,  though 
she  were  in  Christ.  "Lord,  what  is  man  (anthropos) 
that  thou  art  mindful  of  him ;"  but  it  is  not  wonderful 
that  thou  art  mindful  of  woman.  "Man  [anthropos) 
that  is  born  of  woman  is  of  few  days,  and  full  of  trouble ;" 
but  these  are  not  the  lot  of  women.  Would  to  God  that 
it  were  so !  Would  to  God  that  it  were  not  true  that 
the  most  crushing  troubles  she  has  to  bear  did  not  result 
to  her  from  being  unequally  yoked  together  with  the 
tyrannical  and  brutal  of  my  own  sex  !  If  any  thing  more 
needs  to  be  added,  one  passage  of  Scripture  makes  it.  so 
clear  that  caviling  is  impossible.  "  So  God  created  man 
in  His  own  image ;  in  the  image  of  God  created  he  him; 
male  and  female  created  he  them." 

"There  is  neither  Jew  nor  Greek,  there  is  neither 
bond  nor  free ;  there  is  neither  male  nor  female,  (the 
apostle,   observe,   does  not  add  there  is  neither   adult 


INFANT    BAPTISM    CANNOT    BE    SUSTAINED.  263 

nor  infant,)  for  ye  are  all  one  in  Christ  Jesus,"  Gal.  iii. 
28. 

I  close  this  topic  with  the  following  quotation  from 
Dr.  Wardlaw,  a  distinguished  writer  on  the  other  side 
of  the  question  ;  "  I  am  not  going  to  take  up  the  ground 
which  by  some  pedobaptists  has  been  assumed,  that  on 
the  principle  of  the  objection,  we  have  no  direct  and  ex- 
plicit authority  for  the  admission  of  women  to  the  Lord's 
table,  because  this  has  always  appeared  to  me  ground 
hardly  consistent  with  manly  fairness  and  candor,  and 
calculated  to  enfeeble  rather  than  to  strengthen,  to  ex- 
pose to  a  sneer  rather  than  recommend  to  acceptance, 
the  cause  it  is  meant  to  support."  Int.  Obs.  p.  xiii. 

2. — For  the  substitution  of  "  the  Lord's  day"  for  the 
Jewish  Sabbath,  we  have  unequivocal  apostolic  prece- 
dent. The  change  was  made  under  the  sanction  of  in- 
spired men,  whose  business  it  was  to  "set  all  things  in 
order  "  that  pertaineth  to  the  worship  and  moral  govern- 
ment of  Christ's  church,  and  the  observance,  therefore,  of 
the  first  insiead  of  the  seventh  day,  possesses,  to  us,  the 
nature  both  of  a  precept  and  a  j^recedent.  "  And  upon 
the  first  day  of  the  week  when  the  disciples  came  to- 
gether to  break  bread,  Paul  preached  unto  them,"  etc., 
Acts  xx.  7.  "Upon  the  first  day  of  the  week  let  every 
one  of  you  lay  by  him  in  store,  as  God  hath  prospered 
him,"  1  Cor.  xvi  2.  We  have  furnished  you  an  evidence 
which  you  will  not  reject  that  the  inspired  apostles  ob- 
served "  the  Lord's  day,"  instead  of  the  Jewish  Sabbath 
— show  us  evidence  as  conclusive  in  favor  of  infant  bap- 
tism— prove  to  us  that  there  was  one  undoubted  instance 


264  BAPTISM    IX    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

in  which  they  administered  baptism  to  infants,  and  we 
will  submit,  and  will,  without  hesitation,  follow  the  in- 
spired example.  Though,  even  in  that  case  we  should 
have  to  baptize  them  over,  just  as  soon  as  they  professed 
faith  in  Christ,  for  the  baptism  of  the  commission  is  the 
baptism  of  believers.  But  you  cannot  show  one  un- 
doubted instance  of  the  baptism  of  infants  by  the  apos- 
tles. 

Female  communion  and  the  substitution  of  the 
"Lord's  day"  for  the  Jewish  Sabbath  do  not  rest  upon 
the  same  foundation  as  infant  baptism. 

Section  II. — Infant  Baptism  not  founded  on  the 
natural  relations  bettveen  pious  Parents  and  their  Chil- 
dren. 

We  think  the  intelligent  and  unprejudiced  reader  is, 
by  this  time,  prepared  to  say  with  us  that  the  Sacred 
Scriptures  refer  in  terms  neither  directly  or  indirectly  to 
infant  baptism  ;  and  that  if  it  were  not  an  existing  insti- 
tution, it  would  never  be  suggested  to  one  who  would 
read  God's  word  for  the  first  time.  But  do  our  brethern 
who  practice  and  defend  it  acknowledge  that  it  is  with- 
out scriptural  sanction  ?  When  they  propose  to  "  make 
it  out  in  another  way,"  do  they  mean  to  intimate  that  a 
positive  institution  of  Christ's  church  can  be  based  upon 
any  other  than  a  scriptural  foundation  I  No.  We 
would  not  do  them  the  injustice  to  intimate  such  a  thing. 
When  Dr.  Woods  and  other  candid  pedobaptists  grant 
that  "there  is  no  express  precept  respecting  infant  bap- 
tism in  our  sacred  writings,"  they  still  maintain  that  it 


INFANT    BAPTISM    CANNOT    BE    SUSTAINED.  205 

is  a  divine  institution  ;  unci  while  they  do  not  professjg^ 
found  it  upon  express  precept  or  precedent,  they  s§^ 
insist  that  it  can  be  "  made  out"  upon  scriptural  princi- 
ples. They  maintain,  as  they  think,  upon  scriptural 
principles,  thai  the  rite  of  infant  baptism  manifestly  cor- 
responds with  the  natural  relation  between  parents  and 
children  ;  that  God,  under  the  old  dispensation,  marked 
that  relation  by  a  significant  rite;  that  children  were 
members  of  the  church  under  the  Old  Testament  econo- 
my, and  therefore,  by  parity  of  reasoning,  under  the 
new  ;  and  that  baptism,  under  the  new  dispensation, 
came  in  the  place  of  the  initiating  rite  under  the  old. 
So  far,  therefore,  from  a  yielding  to  our  demands  for  a 
"  Thus  saith  the  Lord,"  for  the  baptism  of  infants,  they 
insist  that  the  obligation  rests  upon  us  rather  to  produce 
the  same  to  show  that  they  should  not  be  baptized. 
This  has  seemed  conclusive  reasoning  to  the  thousands 
of,  we  presume,  honest  minds  :  let  us  see,  however,  if  it 
will  bear  the  test  of  critical  examination  : 

1 . — "  The  close  and  endearing  connection  between 
parents  and  children,"  says  Dr.  Miller,  "  affords  a  strong 
argument  in  favor  of  the  church-membership  of  the  in- 
fant seed  of  believers.  The  voice  of  nature  is  lifted  up, 
and  pleads  most  powerfully  in  behalf  of  our  cause.  The 
thought  of  severing  parents  from  their,  offspring,  in  re- 
gard to  the  most  interesting  relations  in  which  it  has 
pleased  God  in  his  adorable  providence  to  place  them,  is 
equally  repugnant  to  Christian  feeling  and  to  natural 
law.  Can  it  be,  my  friends,  that  when  the  stem  is  in 
the  church,  the   branch  is  out  of  it?     Can  it  be  that 


266  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

when  the  parent  is  within  the  visible  kingdom  of  the  Re- 
Werner,  his  offspring,  bone  of  his  bone,  and  flesh  of  his 
flesh,  have  no  connection  with  it?"  p.  16.  This  is  suf- 
ficiently affecting  and  pretty ;  but  it  will  not  bear  ex- 
amination. 

1st.  This  is  to  assume  that  salvation  is  hereditary — 
that  all  the  children  of  believers,  without  a  single  excep- 
tion, are  saved.  For,  w  can  it  be  that  when  the  stem  is 
in"  heaven  the  branch  is  out  of  it  ?  Can  it  be  that 
when  the  parent  is  within  the  kingdom  of  "glory,"  his 
offspring,  bone  of  his  bone,  and  flesh  of  his  flesh,  have 
no  connection  with  it,  but  are  heirs  of  hell  and  the  vic- 
tims of  despair  ?  Then  all  the  children  of  pious  parents 
are  sure  of  eternal  life.  Then  all  the  descendants  of 
"  faithful  Abraham"  will  be  saved,  not  only  through  the 
lines  of  Isaac  and  Jacob,  but  through  the  lines  also  of 
Esau,  of  Ishmael,  and  of  the  sons  of  Keturah  !  For  this, 
more  powerfully,  is  "  the  voice  of  nature  lifted  up  and 
pleads  !"  Why  is  the  union  of  parents  and  children  in 
church  relationship,  more  interesting  than  their  union  in 
heaven  ? 

2d.  This  is  to  assume,  that  to  admit  the  "  infant  seed 
of  believers"  into  the  church,  is  to  establish  a  spiritual 
and  Christian  union  and  communion  between  them  and 
their  parents,  which  did  not  exist  before,  and  could  not 
exist  otherwise  !  What  are  those  "  interesting  relations" 
in  regard  to  which  parents  are  severed  from  their  off- 
spring by  a  refusal  to  admit  the  latter  to  church  mem- 
bership ?  By  the  baptism  of  the  latter,  are  they  the 
better  able  to  hold  sweet  counsel  together,  and  to  walk 


INFANT    BAPTISM    CANNOT    BE    SUSTAINED.         267 

to  the  house  of  God  in  company  ?  Are  they  qualified 
the  more  to  "speak  often  one  to  another"  about  the 
truths  of  revelation,  and  the  dealings  of  God  with  their 
souls  ?  Are  the  barriers  of  church  communion  removed, 
so  that  they  can  meet  together  at  the  table  of  the  Lord, 
and  unitedly  engage  in  partaking  of  the  emblems  of  the 
broken  body  and  shed  blood  of  Christ?  In  the  name 
of  common  sense,  what  fraternal  relations  are  produced 
between  the  parent  and  an  unconscious  infant,  by  the 
nominal  admission  of  the  latter  into  the  church? 

"This  duty,"  says  Dr.  Tracy,  "is  reasonable  in  itself, 
and  in  accordance  with  our  best  affections.  In  the  .chil- 
dren of  those  we  love,  we  all  naturally  feel  a  peculiar 
interest.  %A  good  prince  would  wish,  and  would  provide, 
that  the  children  of  his  beloved  and  faithful  friends 
should  be  placed  in  a  near  relation  to  himself.  And 
shall  it  be  supposed  that  the  Prince  of  Life  will  not  re- 
gard with  tokens  of  peculiar  favor,  the  children  of  his 
covenant  people  ?"  Art.  "  Baptism,"  Enc.  Rel.  Knowl. 
Dr.  Tracy's  voice  of  reason  is,  if  possible,  liable  to  greater 
and  more  numerous  objections,  than  Dr.  Miller's  "  voice 
of  nature." 

1. — It,  too,  implies,  very  strongly,  that  all  the  children 
of  believers  are  sure  of  eternal  life.  "  A  good  prince 
would  wish,  and  would  provide,  that  the  children  of  his 
beloved  and  faithful  friends  should  be  placed  in  a  near 
relation  fco  himself."  "Afid  shall  it  be  supposed  that 
the  Prince  of  Life"  would  leave  amono^  the  non-elect 
"  the  children   of  hi*  covenant  people?"     This  conse- 


268  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

quence  is  inevitable,  but  suppose  we  waive  it,  for  the 
sake  of  argument.     Then, 

2. — According  to  the  premises,  the  infant  is  not  in- 
debted to  the  "  Prince  of  Life"  for  admission  to  the 
church,  but  to  the  parent.  True,  it  is  said  that  the  Sa- 
viour bestows  the  right ;  but  how  can  the  infant  become 
acquainted  with  its  right,  and  how  can  it  claim  it  ? 
But  it  is  replied,  that  the  church-membership  of  the  in- 
fant is  a  joint  favor  conferred  upon  it  and  its  believing 
parent,  and  that  it  is  made  the  duty  of  the  parent  to  see 
that  his  offspring  secure  the  privilege  to  which  it  is  en- 
titled. We  need  not  ask  for  the  precept  pointing  out 
this  parental  duty  ;  for  our  brethren  frankly  acknowledge 
there  is  none  such  in  express  terms,  and  point  us  for  evi- 
dence to  this  very  train  of  reasoning  we  are  now  review- 
ing. Let  us  confine  our  attention,  then,  to  the  first  part 
of  the  statement,  which  asserts  that  infant  baptism  is  a 
favor  conferred  jointly  upon  a  believer  and  his  infant 
offspring. 

1st.  How  is  the  baptism  of  the  infant  a  favor  conferred 
upon  the  parent  ?  Does  the  "  dedication  of  his  child  in 
baptism"  increase  his  own  spirituality,  or  tend  to  make 
his  own  salvation  more  secure  ?  In  what  respect  is  the 
offering  of  his  child  in  baptism  a  "  means  of  grace"  to 
himself?  Is  it  said  that  it  is  a  solemn  ceremony,  which 
is  calculated  to  impress  upon  him  a  sense  of  the  duty  he 
owes  his  child,  not  only  to  dedicate  him  to  God,  but  to 
rear  him  up  in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord, 
and  to  stimulate  him  to  the  discharge  of  those  duties  ? 
Then,  I  answer,  you  must  add  another  clause  to  youi 


INFANT    BAPTISM    CANNOT    BE    SUSTAINED.         269 

definition  of  baptism.     "  It"  not  only  "  refers  to  the  re- 
mission of  sins  by  the  blood  of  Christ,  and  regeneration 
by  his  spirit ;"  it  not  only  "  teaches  us  that  we  are  by 
nature  guilty  and  depraved,  and  stand  in  need  of  the 
pardoning  and  sanctifying  grace  of  God  by  a  crucified 
Redeemer."  but  it  is  designed  to  impress  upon  parents 
their  duties  to  their  offspring,  and  to  stimulate  them  to 
discharge  them.    The  very  fact — I  will  say,  by  the  way — 
that  you  cannot  give  a  definition  of  baptism  which  will 
include  your  notions  of  your  infantile  rite,  shows  very 
clearly  that  it  is  different  from  the  scriptural  ordinance. 
But  to  return.     If  the  solemn   ceremony  is  that  which 
profits  the  the  parent,  would  not  the  same  effect  be  pro- 
duced if  oil  and  spittle  were  substituted  for  water,  and 
the  officiating  priest  or  minister  should  solemnly  dedi- 
cate your  child  by  annointing  it?     Would  not  the  use 
of  the  oil  impress  you  as  much  as  the  use  of  the  water  ? 
Nay  more,  would  not  the  parent  be  just   as  much  in- 
structed and  stimulated  by  bringing  his  "  infant  seed" 
into  the  public  congregation,  and  dedicating  it  to  God 
in  the  'prayers  of  the  minister  and  of  all  the  people  of 
God  ?     Now  this  last  we  have  no  objection  to,  nor  could 
it  be  objected  to  excepting  on  the  ground  of  the  ten- 
dency of  poor  human   nature   to  run  such  things  into 
superstition.     It  is  not  then   the  baptism  of  the  child 
that  benefits  the  parent  so  much  as  the  solemn  ceremony 
attending  the  baptism.     On  this  principle  the  Romanist 
and   the  Puseyite  defend  all  their  scenic  exhibitions. 
The  parent,  therefore,  is  benefited  on  the  same  principle 
that  superstition  benefits  its  votaries.     I  mean  this  as 


270  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

the  conclusion  of  the  argument,  and  not  as  an  offensive 
assertion. 

2d.  How  is  the  baptism  of  the  infant  a  favor  confer- 
red upon  it  \     Does  baptism  wash  away  its  sins,  or  oth- 
erwise  secure   its   salvation  ?     If  it  die   in  its  infancy, 
would  it  be  more  sure  of  eternal  life  because  the  rite 
had  been  administered  to  it  ?  and  does  baptism  give  to 
it  any  assurance,  that  if  it  live  to  adult   age,  it  will  be 
any  more  certain  to  experience  the  regenerating  grace 
of  God  ?     Does  it  apply  any  moral  influence  to  it  while 
in  an  infantile  state  ?     What   moral  advantage  can  be 
experienced    in    this  world    by  an    unconscious    babe*? 
Much  has  been  written  and  said  about  the  advantage  to 
human   beings  of  this   class,  of  being  the   offspring  of 
pious  parents  ;  but  it  all  consists  of  sound  without  any 
sense.     An  infant,  while  an  infant,  is  not  the  subject  of 
moral  influence  from  its  parent ;  it  is  affected  for  good 
or  for  evil  only  by  physical  influences.     It  is  a  blessing 
of  most  inestimable  value  to  be  made,  in  the  providence 
of  God,  the  offspring  of  truly  pious   parents ;  but  the 
blessing  is  not  experienced  until  the  child  becomes  old 
enough   to  become   the  subject  of  moral  influence.     I 
ask  agaiu,  then — in  what  respect  is  baptism  a  favor  con- 
ferred upon  the  child  ?     Is  it  said  that  it  is  a  favor  be- 
cause it  admits  him  to  the  church  ?     I  answer,  how  is 
it  an  advantage,  when,  (1)  it  is  not  capable  of  appre- 
ciating it ;  and  if  it  were  capable,  when  (2)  the  privi- 
leges of  church  membership  are  denied  to  it  ?  the  chil- 
dren are  in  name  members,  but  they  are  not  permitted 
to  commemorate  with   the  church    the  sufferings  and 


INFANT    BAPTISM    CANNOT    BE    SUSTAINED.         2Yl 

death  of  the  Saviour.  If  it  be  said  that  their  baptism 
and  church  membership  will  benefit  them,  because  they 
mark  them  as  individuals  that  are  peculiarly  under  the 
guardianship  of  the  church  ;  and  because,  in  receiving 
them  into  membership,  the  pastor  and  the  church  pledge 
themselves  to  labor  for  their  spiritual  welfare  :  then,  I 
reply — (1)  this  is  to  acknowledge  that  while  infants, 
they  are  not  benefited  at  all ;  and,  I  add,  (2)  there  is  no 
different  way  to  labor  for  their  souls,  and  no  greater  in- 
ducement to  do  so,  than  for  the  souls  of  others  not 
dedicated  in  baptism.  Does  the  love  of  Christ  constrain 
you  in  their  case  ?  so  ought  it  in  all  o#iers.  Does  the 
burden  of  their  souls  rest  on  your  heart  ?  so  is  it  your 
duty  to  feel  for  all  others  that  sit  under  your  ministry. 
Do  you  feel  pledged  specially  to  seek  after  their  spirit- 
ual interests  ?  so  are  you  in  reference  to  all  others,  if 
you  are  a  good  and  true  minister  of  Jesus  Christ.  Are 
persons  of  this  class  more  likely  to  be  accessible  to  the 
influences  which  you  wield,  than  others  who  have  not 
been  baptized  in  infancy  ?  Do  you  hope  to  exert  a 
peculiar  influence  by  reminding  them  of  their  dedica- 
tion in  their  infancy  ?  Nine  chances  to  one,  but  that 
they  remind  you  that  they  had  no  agency  in  that  trans- 
action, and  are,  therefore,  in  no  respect  responsible  for  it. 
So  far  from  a  knowledge  of  their  baptism  in  infancy 
having  a  tendency  to  bring  them  to  reflection,  and  to 
repentance,  it  has  just  the  contrary  tendency.  In  the 
first  place,  they  feel  no  responsibility  because  of  that 
transaction  ;  for  it  was  done  without  their  knowledge  and 
consent,     And,  in  the  next  place,  so  averse  is  the  natural 


272  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

heart  to  the  service  of  God,  and  so  prone  is  it  to  lay 
hold  upon  any  pretext  to  put  off  the  evil  day  as  long  as 
possible,  that  they  are  likely  so  to  pervert  their  minis- 
ters expositions  of  the  advantages  of  their  infant  dedi- 
cation, as  to  think  that  they  csn,  with  impunity,  con- 
tinue in  sin ;  for  God  will  be  sure  to  confer  that  in  the 
u  covenant,"  which  was  "sealed  to  them  in  baptism." 
Besides,  how  natural  is  it  for  men  to  rest  satisfied  with 
a  righteousness  short  of  the  "  righteousness  which  is  of 
God,"  through  faith  in  Christ  ?  What  multitudes  are 
there  in  the  Romish  "  Church,"  and  out  of  it,  who  are 
confidently  expe#ing  salvation,  on  the  ground  that  they 
were  made  Christians  in  their  infancy  by  baptism !  So 
far,  then,  is  baptism  from  being  a  favor  to  an  infant.  It 
is  a  curse — an  evil  of  a  most  unmitigated  nature,  if  it 
exerts  any  influence  at  all.  To  ascertain  in  detail  the 
u  Evils  of  Infant  Baptism,"  the  reader  is  referred  to  an 
able  work  with  that  title,  by  Dr.  Howell,  issued  by  the 
Southern  Baptist  Publication  Society. 

Pedobaptist-  doctors  of  divinity  of  the  Calvinistic 
school,  base  their  arguments  of  nature  and  reason  only 
upon  the  fact  that  the  parent  is  a  believer  in  Christ. 
Reason  would  say  that  "  a  good  prince  would  wish  and 
would  provide  that  the  children  of  his  beloved  and  faith- 
ful friends  should  be  placed  in  near  relations  to  himself; 
and  shall  it  be  supposed  that  the  Prince  of  Life  will  not 
regard  with  tokens  of  peculiar  favor  the  children  of  his 
covenant  people  ?"  And  the  voice  of  nature  is  lifted  up 
in  remonstrance  against  the  idea  that  the  parent  can  be 
in  the  church  and  the  child  out  of  it.     Pedobaptist  doc- 


INFANT    BAPTISM    CANNOT    BE    SUSTAINED.         2*73 

tors  of  divinity  of  the  Arminian  school  pronounce  this 
principle  unnatural,  unreasonable  and  unscriptural. 
"They  are  not  baptized  because  their  parents  are  be- 
lievers in  Christ.  Their  rio-ht  to  the  ordinance  is  of  a 
higher  investiture.  They  claim  by  a  noble  entail. 
Dying  in  infancy,  they  enter  heaven,  not  on  the  ground 
of  their  Christian  descent — the  piety  of  their  parents — 
but  because  of  their  personal  connection  with  the  second 
Adam,"  &c,  Summers,  p.  22.  "There  can  be  no  reason 
to  justify  the  exclusion  of  any  from  the  sign  and  seal  of 
the  Divine  mercy,  except  such  as  exclude  themselves  by 
their  obstinate  impeuiteuev — and  infants  are  not  of  that 
number,"  p.  23.  If  a  controversy  could  only  arise  be- 
tween these  two  parties.  Dr.  Summers  and  his  brethren 
could  argue  with  no  little  force  against  their  Calvinistic 
(in  that  event)  opponents,  that  this  "reason  and  nature" 
is  directly  opposed  to  their  doctrine  of  election.  In  their 
systems  of  divinity,  they  argue  that  God's  election  is 
sovereign,  and  irrespective  of  merit ;  but  when  they  write 
on  the  subject  of  infant  baptism,  they  express  themselves 
as  if  thev  believed  that  God  is  brought  under  obligations 
to  the  children,  by  the  faithfulness  of  the  parents,  and 
that,  consequently,  the  basis  of  election  is  not  God's 
sovereignty,  but.  the  piety  and  merits  of  the  parent.  For 
the  sake  of  peace  and  co-operation,  however,  Dr.  S.  is 
disposed  to  waive  this.  "  Some  of  the  advocates  of  in- 
fant baptism  have  set  forte*  certain  notions  of  their  own 
about  the  children  of  believers  being:  born  in  the  cove- 
nant,  and,  therefore,  entitled  to  its  seal ;  but  this  is  a 
speculation  adventitious  to  the  doctrine  of  infant  baptism, 
18 


2*74  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

though  considered  comparatively  harmless  by  those  who 
do  not  receive  it,"  p.  184.  Infant  baptism  is  sustained 
on  this  ground  neither  by  nature,  reason,  unanimity 
among  its  advocates,  nor  by  the  interests  of  the  "parent 
or  the  child. 

Section  III. — The  Abrahamic  Covenant  furnishes  no 
support  for  Infant  Baptism. 

To  discover  the  nature  of  a  New  Testament  institution, 
it  is  reasonable  that  our  investigations  should  be  con- 
fined to  the  New  Testament.  We  do  not  propose  to 
avail  ourselves  of  this  plea,  however,  since  our  brethren 
insist  upon  "making  out"  their  infant  baptism  by  refer- 
ence to  an  Old  Testament  rite.  We  prefer  rather  to 
meet  them  upon  their  own  ground  ;  and  if  we  do  not 
vanquish  them,  it  will  be  our  own  fault,  and  not  because 
of  the  strength  of  their  position. 

Arminian  and  Calvinistic  pedobaptists  both  refer  to 
the  "  Abrahamic  covenant"  in  proof  of  infant  baptism, 
.but  with  such  contradictory  interpretations  as  mutually 
to  refute  each  other.  To  answer  their  arguments,  there- 
fore, we  must  meet  the  parties  one  at  a  time.  For  it 
does  not  follow  that  because  one  is  wrong,  the  other  is 
also.  First,  then,  let  Dr.  Summers  state  the  view  of 
Metliodists  and  other  Anninians  :  "  They  are  specifi- 
cally embraced  in  the  Gospel  covenant.  When  that 
covenant  was  made  with  Abraham,  his  children  were 
brought  under  its  provisions,  and  the  same  seal  that  was 
administered  to  him  was  administered  also  to  them — 
including  both  those  that  were  born  in  his  house,  and 


INFANT    BAPTISM    CANNOT    BE    SUSTAINED.         275 

those  that  were  bought  with  his  money.  They  were  all 
alike  circumcised  in  token  of  their  common  interest  in 
that  covenant,  of  which  circumcision  was  the  appointed 
symbol.  That  covenant  is  still  in  force.  '  Know  ye 
therefore,1  says  the  apostle,  '  that  they  which  arc  of 
faith,  the  same  are  the  children  of  Abraham.'  And  the 
Scripture,  foreseeing  that  God  would  justify  the  heathen 
through  faith,  preached  before  the  gospel  unto  Abra- 
ham, saying  :  '  In  thee  shall  all  nations  be  blessed.' " 
p.  23. 

Now,  it  ought  to  be  astonishing  that  a  doctor  of  di- 
vinify  is  capable  of  penning  a  paragraph  containing  as 
much  confusion  as  the  above. 

1. — It  confounds  the  "  Gospel  covenant"  or  the  cove- 
nant of  grace  with  the  "  covenant  of  circumcision."  Any 
one  who  carefully  reads  the  book  of  Genesis,  and  the 
comments  of  the  apostles  upon  it,  in  their  addresses  and 
writings,  will  see  that  there  were  two  transactions  called 
covenants,  to  which  Abraham  was  a  party — the  cove- 
nant of  grace,  and  the  covenant  of  circumcision.  The 
former  was  confirmed  to  him  when  he  was  seventy-five 
years  old  (Gen.  xii.  4),  and  the  latter  made  with  him 
when  he  was  ninety-years  old  (xvii.  1.)  The  covenant 
of  grace,  which  Paul  terms  "  the  gospel  preached  to 
Abraham,"  was  the  same  as  that  revealed  to  Adam,  that 
the  seed  of  the  woman  should  bruise  the  serpent's  head. 
We  are  told  (Gen.  xii.  3),  that  when  God  commanded 
Abraham  to  leave  his  country  and  his  .father's  house,  he 
declared  to  him :  "  In  thee  shall  all  families  of  the 
earth  be  blessed."     After  the  birth  of  Isaac,  (xxii.  16, 


276  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

18,)  he  repeats  the  same  in  substance,  varj'ing  somewhat 
the  phraseology  :  "  In  thy  seed  shall  all  the  nations 
of  the  earth  be  blessed."  After  the  death  of  Abraham 
the  same  was  revealed  to  Isaac  (xxvi.  4)  and  to  Jacob 
(xxviii.  14.) 

Peter  calls  this  (Acts  iii.  25)  "  the  covenant  which 
God  made  with  our  fathers,"  and  Paul  terms  it  the  gos- 
pel— "And  the  Scriptures,  foreseeing  that  God  would 
justify  the  heathen  through  faith,  preached  before  the 
gospel  unto  Abraham,  saying,  In  thee  shall  all  nations 
of  the  earth  be  blessed,"  Gal.  iii.  8.  Now,  the  "  seed" 
in  whom  all  the  nations  of  the  world  were  to  be  blessed, 
was  Christ.  "  Now,  to  Abraham  and  his  seed  were  the 
promises  made.  He  saith  not,  and  to  seeds  as  of  many, 
but  as  one,  and  to  thy  seed,  which  is  Christ,"  Gal.  iii.  16. 
Abraham  had  the  gospel  preached  to  him  and  he  be- 
lieved it.  He  saw  Christ's  day  and  rejoiced.  He  was 
taught  distinctly  to  understand  that  the  Saviour  of  the 
world  was  to  descend  through  his  loins  ;  he  understood 
clearly  the  relations  which  Christ  was  to  sustain  to  poor 
guilty  sinners,  and  he  believed  in  him  with  the  heart 
unto  righteousness,  and,  therefore,  his  faith  was  imputed 
to  him  for  righteousness. 

Now,  if  this  was  the  same  as  the  covenant  of  circum- 
cision, it  was  for  twenty-four  years  without  its  "seal," 
the  very  thing  that  our  author  needs  most.  When 
Abraham  was  seventy-five  years  old,  "  the  gospel  was 
preached  to  him/'  or  the  promise  was  given  to  him  that 
his  "  seed,  which  is  Christ,"  should  bless  all  the  nations 
of  the  earth ;  when  he  was  ninety  and  nine  years  old, 


INFANT    BAPTISM    CANNOT   BE    SUSTAINED.         277 

the  covenant  of  circumcision  was  made  with  him,  "  hav- 
ing circumcision  as  its  seal."  to  use  the  language  of  our 
opponents. 

2. — Dr.  S.  speaks  of  this  "gospel  covenant,"  in  which 
infants  are  embraced,  as  "  made  with  Abraham."  For 
nearly  two  thousand  years,  therefore,  the  world  had  been 
without  the  gospel,  and,  consequently,  Adam  and  all 
his  posterity  to  Abraham,  including  Abel  and  Enoch, 
and  Noah,  &c,  &c,  were  lost,  or  were,  some  of  them, 
saved  without  Christ!  Paul,  who,  perhaps,  knew  as 
well  the  nature  of  this  transaction,  says  :  "And  this  I 
say,  that  the  covenant  that  was  confirmed  before  of 
God  in  Christ,  the  law,  which  was  four  hundred  and 
thirty  years  after,  cannot  disannul,  that  it  should  make 
the  promise  of  none  effect,"  Gal.  iii.  17.  Our  author 
says  God  made  this  covenant  with  Abraham,  Paul  says 
he  confirmed  it.  Now,  to  confirm  is  to  strengthe^fce^ 
which  already  exists. 

3. — He  says  :  "  They  are  specifically  embraced  in  the 
gospel  covenant."  Who  ?  Suppose  we  grant  that  the 
children  of  Abraham  wrere  included  in  the  "  gospel  cove- 
nant," how  does  this  prove  that  the  children  of  all  par- 
ents, Jew  or  Gentile,  Barbarian,  Scythian,  bond  or  free, 
are  included  ?  Did  God  enter  into  a  covenant  with 
Abraham  as  the  federal  head  of  all  parents  ?  If  the 
offspring  of  pious  parents  are  entitled  to  "  the  seal  of 
the  covenant"  because  the  parents  are  the  spiritual  chil- 
dren of  Abraham,  upon  what  principle  are  those  entitled 
to  it  whose  parents  are  not  of  faith,  are  not  the  children 
of  Abraham,  and  are  not  blessed  with  faithful  Abraham? 


278  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

In  the  mouth  of  a  Galvinist,  this  Abrahamic  covenant 
has  some  show  of  consistency,  but  in  the  mouth  of  an 
Arminiau  none  at  all. 

"When  God  called  Abraham  and  established  his  cove- 
nant with  him  he  not  only  embraced  his  infant  seed,  in 
the  most  express  terms,  in  that  covenant,  but  he  also 
appointed  an  ordinance  by  which  this  relation  of  his 
children  to  the  visible  church  was  publicly  ratified  and 
sealed."  Circumcision  was  the  seal  of  the  covenant 
under  the  Old  Testament  dispensation — baptism  is  a 
seal  of  it  under  the  New.  (Dr.  Miller,  p.  17.)  This 
asserts : 

1. — That  God  made  a  covenant  with  Abraham,  in  the 
blessings  of  which  his  seed  were  included. 

2. — That  he  gave  to  his  infant  seed  an  ordinance 
by  which  their  title  to  those  blessings  was  ratified  or 
seA). 

3. — That  circumcision  was  that  seal. 

4. — That  as  they  which  be  of  faith  are  blessed  with 
faithful  Abraham,  therefore  their  children  also  are  enti- 
tled to  the  blessings  of  the  church. 

5. — That  as  circumcision  was  a  seal  of  the  righteous- 
ness of  faith  then,  and  baptism  is  a  seal  of  the  righteous- 
ness of  faith,  now — baptism  is  now  that  seal,  and  has 
come  in  the  place  of  circumcision. 

Not  one  of  these  propositions  is  true,  as  we  shall  pro- 
reed  to  show.  Before  doing  so,  however,  let  us  see  what 
was  the  covenant  of  circumcision.  It  is  found  in  Gen. 
xvii.  1-14.  "And  when  Abram  was  ninety  years  old 
and  nine,  the  Lord  appeared    to  Abram,  and  said  unto 


INFANT    BAPTISM    CANNOT     BE    SUSTAINED.  279 

him,  I  am  the  Almighty  God;   walk  before  me  and  be 
thou  perfect.     And  I  "will  make   ray  covenant   between 
me  and  thee,  and  will  multiply  thee  exceedingly.     And 
Abram  fell  on  his  face :  and  God  talked  with  him,  say- 
ing, As  for  me,  behold,  my  covenant  is  with  thee,  and 
thou  shalt  be  a   father  of  many  nations.     Neither  shall 
thy  name  any  more  b?  called  Abram,  but  thy  name  shall 
be  Abraham ;  for  a  father  of  many  nations  have  I  made 
thee.     And  I  will  make  thee  exceeding  fruitful,  and  I 
will  make  nations  of  thee  ;  and  kings  shall  come  out  of 
thee.     And  I  will  establish  my  covenant  between   me 
and  thee,  and  thy  seed  after  thee  in  their  generations  for 
an  everlasting  covenant ;  to  be  a  God  unto   thee,  and 
to  thy  seed  after  thee.     And  I  will  give  unto  thee,  and 
to   thy  seed   after   thee,  the   land  wherein  thou  art  a 
stranger,  all  the  land  of  Canaan,  for  an  everlasting  pos- 
session ;  and  I  will  be  their  God.     And  God  said  unto 
Abraham  :     Thou   shalt  keep  my  covenant,  therefore, 
thou  and  thy  seed  after  thee,  in  their  generations.     This 
is  my  covenant  which   ye  shall   keep,  between  me  and 
you  and  thy  seed  after  thee:     Every  man-child  among 
you  shall  be  circumcised.     And  ye  shall  circumcise  the 
flesh  <>f  your  foreskins;  and  it  shall  be  a  token  of  the 
covenant  betwixt  me  and  you.     And  he  that  is  eight 
days  old  shall  be  circumcised  among  you,  every  man- 
child  in  your  generations,  he  that  is  born  in  the  house, 
or  bought  with  money  of  any  stranger,  which  is  not  of 
thy  seed.     He  that  is  born  in  thy  house,  and  he  that  is 
bought  with    thy  money,  must  needs  be  circumcised: 
.\\v]  mv  covenant  shall  be  in  your  flesh  for  an  everlast- 


280  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

ing  covenant.     And  the  unciroujucised  man-child,  wh 
flesh  of  lfis  foreskin  is  not  circumcise^,  thai  souj  ^liall 
be  put  off  from  his  people:  he  hath  broken  m\  cove- 
nant." 

This  covenant  includes  three  prom  li  of  which 

contains  a  letter  and  a  spirit.     See  Gal.  iv.  22-31. 

1. — That  he  should  have  a  numerous  posterity.  This 
was  fulfilled  literally  in  the  nation  of  Israel,  and  in  the 
spirit,  because,  by  divine  appointment,  he  was  made  the 
father  of  all  them  that  believe  in  all  countries,  and  in  all 
succeeding  ages  to  the  end  of  time. 

2. — That  he  would  be  a  God  to  him  and  to  all  lii> 
posterity;  fulfilled  literally  in  his  protection  vt'  the 
Israelites  in  Egypt,  in  the  wilderness,  and  in  all  an 
quent  time,  till  their  rejection  of  Christ  ;  and  in  the 
spirit,  in  the  protection  and  grace  he  bestows  upon  all 
true  believers,  who  are  the  spiritual  children  of  Abraham. 

3. — That  his  posterity  should  inherit  the  land  of  Ca- 
naan;  fulfilled  literally  when  Joshua  led  the  Israelites 
into  the  promised  land ;  and  spiritually,  when  true  be- 
lievers are  admitted  to  heaven,  the  spiritual  Canaan. 

TVith  this  exposition  of  the  promises  embraced  in  the 
Abrahamic  covenant,  let  us  take  up  the  prop  laid 

down  by  Dr.  Miller,  and  see  if  they  can  be  sustained. 

1. — In  all  the  Promises  of  this  Covenant  the  Seed  of 
Abraham  were  not  Included. 

1st.  They  were  not  to  be  made  fathers  of  many  na- 
tions. This  promise  was  limited  to  Abraham  ;  and  nei- 
ther his  literal  nor  his  spiritual  seed  had  any  interest 
in  it. 


INFANT    BAPTISM    CANNOT    BE    SUSTAINED.  281 

2d.  With  the  exception  of  Isaac  and  Jacob,  no 
promise  of  children  was  made  to  any  of  his  posterity. 
God  designed  that  the  line  of  descent  should  continue 
uninterrupted  from  Abraham  to  Christ ;  but  multitudes 
of  Abraham's  descendants  lived  and  died  without  pos- 
terity. 

3d.  The  promise  that  kings  should  come  out  of  his 
loins  was  limited  to  Abraham. 

2. —  God  did  not  give  to  Abraham *s  Infant  Seed  an 
Ordinance  by  which  their  Title  to  those  blessings  was 
Sealed. 

1st.  If  circumcision  was  the  ordinance  that  sealed  this 
title,  one-half  of  his  infant  seed  were  disinherited,  for 
only  the  man-child  was  to  be  circumcised. 

2d.  If  circumcision  sealed  a  title  to  the  blessings  of 
the  promise,  then  Ishmael,  the  sons  of  Keturah,  Esau, 
and  the  slaves  of  the  Israelites  obtained  them,  or  else 
God  failed  to  fulfill  his  promise. 

3d.  Many  who  were  circumcised  failed  to  secure  the 
promised  blessing.  Were  Korah,  Dathan  and  Abiram, 
and  multitudes  who  died  by  the  judgments  of  God  in 
the  wilderness,  admitted  to  the  Canaan  either  on  earth 
or  in  heaven  ? 

4th.  The  painful  ordinance  of  circumcision  was  ad- 
ministered to  infants,  not  for  moral,  but  for  physical 
reasons.  % 

."5th.  If  it  be  objected  to  the  above  that  Dr.  Miller 
claimed  only  that  circumcision  was  an  ordinance  which 
publicly  ratified  and  sealed  to  infants  a  relation  to  the 
visible   church,  then,  I  answer,  it  was   a  seal   only  to 


282  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

males,  and,  consequently,  no  females  were  members  of 
the  church,  or  otherwise  partook  of  the  blessings  of  the 
covenant. 

3. —  Circumcision  was  a  Seal  to  none  but  Abraham, 
There  is  only  one  place  in  the  Bible  (Rom.  iv.  11)  where 
circumcision  is  called  a  seal,  and  there  it  is  said  to  be  a 
seal,  not  of  the  faith  of  Abraham,  but  of  the  righteous- 
ness of  the  faith  which  he  had.  "  And  he  received  the 
sign  of  circumcision;  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  the 
faith  which  he  had,  yet  being  uncircumcised  ;  that  he 
might  be  the  father  of  all  them  that  believed,  though 
they  be  not  circumcised,  that  righteousness  might  be 
imputed  unto  them  also."  This  does  not  say,  as  our  op- 
ponents usually  quote  it,  that  circumcision  was  a  sign 
and  a  seal  of  Abraham's  faith,  but  a  seal  of  the  righteous- 
ness of  that  faith.  Now  God  had  revealed  to  Abraham 
that  his  seed,  which  was  Christ,  should,  in  the  fulness  of 
timea  appear  in  the  world  as  the  Saviour  of  sinners,  and 
Abraham  had  believed  in  that  promised  Saviour,  and 
this,  his  faith,  was  imputed  to  him  for  righteousness. 
What  then  does  the  apostle  mean  by  the  righteousness 
of  his  faith  ?  None  other  than  the  righteousness  which 
God  had  provided  in  Christ,  and  which  is  imputed  to 
every  one  that  believes.  God  had  promised  Abraham 
that  Christ,  "  the  righteousness,'1  which  should  be  the 
object  of  faith,  should  descend  from  him  ;  and  as  a  sea!. 
assurance,  or  pledge  of  the  faithfulness  of  his  promise 
be  gave  to  him  and  his  posterity  circumcision  in  the 
rlesh  until  the  advent  of  Christ.  As  the  bow  in  the 
cloud,  therefore,  was  God's  token  that  the  floods  should 


INFANT    BAPTISM    CANNOT    BE    SUSTAINED.  283 

no  more  come  to  destroy  the  earth,  so  was  circumcision 
a  token  or  a  pledge  that  the  promised  seed  should 
come. 

Circumcision,  consequently,  was  not  designed  as  "  an 
ordinance  by  which  relation  to  the  visible  church  was  to 
be  publicly  ratified  and  sealed,"  but,  as  the  apostle  says, 
as  a  token  that  God  would  fulfill  his  covenant  with  Abra- 
ham, to  the  effect  that  the  promised  seed  should  appear 
among  his  descendants.  In  the  death  and  resurrection 
of  Christ,  therefore,  the  covenant  was  fulfilled,  and  con- 
sequently the  token  was  withdrawn.  The  conditions  of 
the  bond  had  been  satisfied,  and  the  bond  itself  was  can- 
celled and  destroyed.  There  is  nothing,  therefore,  to 
come  in  the  place  of  circumcision  in  the  flesh,  unless  it 
be  "  circumcision  of  the  heart  in  the  spirit ;"  and  that 
pertains  not  to  infants,  but  only  to  those  who  have  faith. 
There  remain  but  too  more  of  the  propositions  contained 
in  the  extract  of  Dr.  Miller. 

5. — "The  infant  seed  of  Abraham  were  included  in 
the  covenant  made  with  him,  and  enjoyed  consequently 
a  relation  to  the  visible  church.  Now  as  they  which  be 
of  faith  are  blessed  with  faithful  Abraham,  therefore 
their  children  also  are  entitled  to  the  blessings  and  the 
privileges  of  the  church."     To  this  I  answer  : 

1st.  We  are  not  told  that  a  they  which  be  of  faith" 
are  bl^Bd  in  any  other  way  than  in  having  God  for 
their  Cma,  and  in  possessing  a  title  to  the  heavenly 
Canaan. 

2d.  This  is  confounding  the  literal  and  the  spiritual. 
The  logical   conclusion  is.  if  we  are  blessed  because  we 


284  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

are  spiritual  children  of  Abraham,  then  others  will  be 
blessed  because  they  are  spiritual  children  of  us — nay, 
this  itself,  would  not  be  a  logical  conclusion,  unless  it 
can  be  shown  that  we  occupy,  by  Divine  appointment, 
the  same  relation  to  spiritual  children  that  Abraham 
does  to  believers.  And  no  one  can  show  that  the  cove- 
nant with  Abraham  was  made  also  Avith  every  one  who 
believes. 

8d.  If  our  spiritual  descent  from  Abraham,  the  father 
of  all  them  that  believe,  entitles  our  children  to  baptism 
and  church-membership,  then  the  same  entitles  our  ser- 
vants born  in  our  house  and  bought  with  our  money. 
A  practical  illustration  of  the  consistency  of  those  who 
hold  this  theory  of  the  perpetuity  of  the  Abrahamic 
covenant,  and  its  application  to  this  subject  of  baptism, 
occurred  not  long  since  in  this  State.  A  gentleman,  a 
member  of  a  Congregational  Church  in  one  of  the  East- 
ern States,  settled  in  one  of  the  interior  towns  of  Georgia. 
Being  an  intelligent  man,  and  well  versed  in  the  theory 
of  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  he  was  soon  surprised  to 
find  that  the  "  seal  of  the  covenant"  was  withheld  from 
the  servants  of  every  age  and  character,  who  were  not 
themselves  professed  believers.  The  Abrahamic  cove- 
nant required  that  all,  old  and  young,  whether  born  in 
the  house,  or  bought  with  money,  should  be  circumcised ; 
but  his  astonishment  was  excited  by  perce^Hg  that 
none,  not  even  the  colored  infants  whose  parents  were 
themselves  believers,  were  admitted  to  the  sealing  ordi- 
nance. In  his  concern  he  applied  to  his  pastor  for  a 
solution  of  the  mystery.     Judge  of  his  astonishment 


INFANT    BAPTISM    CANNOT    BE    SUSTAINED.  285 

when  he  was  informed  that  the  reason  was  that  the  ne- 
groes themselves  was  nearly  all  of  them  Baptists  !    Now, 
this  pastor  was  doubtless  not  aware  that  this  excuse,  if 
valid,  was  a  virtual  abandonment  of  the  Abrahamic  cover 
nant.     Would  Abraham   have  been   deterred  from  cir- 
cumcising his  slave,  bought  with  his  money,  because  he 
had  learned  that  he  was  of  a  different  religion — or  would 
he  have  hesitated  to  apply  the  "seal"  to  the  infants  of 
some  of  his  slaves,  because  he  had  been  told  that  their 
parents  were   pagans  ?     Abraham  would   have  had  no 
respect  whatever  to  the  religious  sentiments  of  his  ser- 
vants; his  only  concern  would  have  been  to  obey  God, 
and  without  any  exception   he  would  have  circumcised 
them  all.     Is  not,  therefore,  the  very  respect  which  our 
brethren  show  to  the  religious  sentiments  of  their  ser- 
vants, an  acknowledgment  that  religion  is  now  a  per- 
sonal matter — that  each  one  is  to  decide  for  himself  how 
he  will  abey  God  according  to  the  Scriptures  ? — and  is 
it  not,  therefore,  virtually  an  abandonment  of  the  Abra- 
hamic covenant  ?     I  have  never  heard  of  the  baptism  of 
a  servant  on  the  ground  that  his  master  was  included  in 
the  Abrahamic  covenant ;  nay,  more,  I  have  lived  in  the 
south  all  my  life,  and  I.  have  never  seen  or  heard  of  the 
instance  in  which  even  a  colored  infant  was  baptized 
for  any  reason.     This  is  no  argument,  I  know,  against 
the  Abrahamic  covenant ;  it  is  introduced  to  show  only 
how  the  pedobaptist  churches  in  the  South  understand 
that  covenant,  and  to  what  extent  they  are  affected  by 
it  in  their  practice.     White  infants  are  the  children  of 
Abraham,  and  are  entitled  to  "  the  seal,"  but  the  negroes 


286  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

are  the  children  of  Ham,  and  are  left  to  "the  uncove- 
nanted  mercies  of  God." 

6. — No  argument  can  be  drawn  from  the  use  of  the 
word  "  seal ;"  for  (1)  circumcision  was  a  seal  only  to 
Abraham,  and  to  him  a  seal,  not  of  his  faith,  but  of  the 
righteousness  of  his  faith,  as  we  have  shown  ;  and  (2) 
baptism  is  said  nowhere  in  the  Scriptures  to  be  a  seal  of 
any  thing  to  its  subjects.  The  only  seal  which  the  New 
Testament  speaks  of  is  the  Holy  Spirit  ;  the  Christian 
has  the  Holy  Spirit,  "  whereby  he  is  sealed  to  the  day 
of  redemption,"  Epb.  iv.  30.  When  sinners  believe  in 
Christ,  they  are  sealed  with  that  Holy  Spirit  of  premise 
which  is  "  the  earnest  of  their  inheritance  until  the  re- 
demption of  the  purchased  possession,"  Eph.  i.  13.  And 
this  is  applicable  not  to  an  unconscious  infant,  but  to 
an  intelligent  believer  in  Christ. 

This  whole  subject  of  the  Abrahamic  covenant  is  in- 
volved in  mists  and  darkness:  and  if  this  is  the  true 
ground  upon  which,  to  base  infant  baptism,  their  it)  is 
utterly  impossible  for  nine  hundred  and  ninety-nine  in  a 
thousand  of  believing  parents  to  obtain  from  it  an  intel- 
ligible reason  for  the  dedication  of  their  "infant  seed" 
in  baptism.  If  they  consult  it,  as  it  is  found  in  the 
Bible  alone,  they  will  find  no  hint  in  favor  of  infant  bap- 
tism; and  if  they  extend  their  inquiries  into  the  pub- 
lished writings  of  pedobaptist  divines,  they  will  find  con- 
fusion worse  confounded.  Every  sect  has  its  own  con- 
struction of  it,  and  none  of  their  writers,  with  all  of  their 
acknowledged  ability,  can  so  illustrate  it  as  to  make  it 
intelligible  to  the  majority  of  their  readers.     Can  it  be, 


INTANT    BAPTISM    CANNOT    BE    SUSTAINED.         287 

therefore,  that  God  has  so  concealed  the  evidences  of  this 
important  duty,  if  duty  it  is  at  all,  as  to  make  it  next  to 
impossible  for  the  vast  majority  of  believers  to  discover 
them  ? 

To  sustain  infant  baptism  by  the  Abrahamic  covenant, 
it  is  necessary  to  prove  that  God  made  the  covenant  with 
Abraham  merely  as  a  parent ;  that  he  makes  the  same 
covenant  not  with  every  believer,  but  with  every  believ- 
ing parent ;  that  all  the  children  of  Abraham,  and,  con- 
sequently, all  the  children  of  believers,  are  included  in 
the   covenant ;  that   circumcision  was   the  seal   of  the 
covenant  with  Abraham  as  a  parent ;  and  that  baptism 
has  been  substituted  as  a  seal  to   all  believing   parents 
and  their  offspring  since  the  death  of  Christ ;  not  one 
of  which   can   be   shown  to  be  true.     Even  if  we  may 
grant  to  Dr.  Summers,  that  the  Abrahamic  was  the  gos- 
pel covenant,  our  admission  would  as  effectually  exclude 
infants,  as  if  they  were  excluded  by  name.     The  gospel, 
as  we  have  shown  in  our  remarks  under  the  commission, 
was   never  designed  for  infants,  but  only  for  those  old 
enough  to  hear,  understand,  and   believe  it.     The  new 
or  gospel  covenant  is  expressed   in  the  following  terms: 
w  Behold  the  days  come,  saith  the  Lord,  that  I  will  make 
a  Dew  covenant  with  the  house  of  Israel  and  with   the 
house  of  Judah.     I  will   put   my  law  in    their   inward 
parts,  and  write  it  in  their  hearts ;  and  I  wi  '1   be   their 
God,  and   they  shall   be   my  people.     And    they   shall 
teach  no  more  every  man  his  neighbor,  and  every  man 
his  brother,  saying,  Know  the  Lord — for  they  shall  all 
know  me  from  the   least  of  them  unto  the  greatest  of 


288  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

them,  saith  the  Lord,"  Jer.  xxxi.  31,  33,  34.  See  also 
Heb.  viii.  10, 1 1.  All  who  are  included  in  this  new  cove- 
nant are  to  have  God's  law  written  in  their  mind  and  heart 
— and  they  are  all  to  know  him  from  the  least  to  the 
greatest.  The  conditions  as  eft'ectually  exclude  infants, 
as  if  they  were  mentioned  by  name.  Make  the  Abra- 
hamic  then,  the  gospel  covenant,  and  it  will  furnish  you 
an  argument  against  rather  than  in  favor  of  the  baptism 
of  infants.  There  is  a  covenant  by  which  infants  are 
saved,  but  it  is  not  the  gospel,  nor  the  Abrahamie  :  but 
the  covenant  of  redemption  between  the  Father  and  the 
Son,  in  which  he  engaged  to  die  for  all  his  chosen  otu-s, 
whether  adults  or  infants. 

We  may  not  hesitate  therefore  to  say,  in  the  language 
oi  a  distinguished  pedobaptist,  Professor  Stuart,  "  The 
Abrahamie  covenant  furnishes  no  ground  for  infant  bap- 
tism."" 

Section  IV. —  The  Jewish  Church  and  the  Christian 
Church  not  the  same  under  different  Dispensations. 

.The  last  hold  which  our  brethren  have  upon  Bible 
analogy  for  the  support  of  infant  baptism,  is  '"the  Jewish 
Church."  "  We  do  not  know  how  any  unprejudiced 
person  can  read  the  Scriptures,  without  seeing  that  the 
Church  of  God  is  essentially  one  and  the  same  under 
every  dispensation,"  Summers,  p.  24.  "That  baptism 
is  the  ordinance  of  initiation  into  the  church,  and  the 
sign  and  seal  of  the  covenant  now,  as  circumcision  was 
formerly,  is  evident,"  p.  25.  The  argument,  then,  is  sim- 
ply this  :     The  Jewish  Church  and  the  Christian  Church 


INFANT   BAPTISM    CANNOT    BE    SUSTAINED.         289 

are  the  same  under  different  dispensations.  Infants 
were  admitted  to  that,  therefore  they  are  to  be  admitted 
to  this.  The  initiating  ordinance  to  that  was  circum- 
cision, the  initiating  ordinance  to  this  is  baptism  ;  there- 
fore baptism  has  come  into  the  place  of  circumcision, 
and  is  to  be  administered  to  the  same  subjects.  This 
argument  has  been  answered  in  part  already  by  remarks 
under  the  Abrahamic  covenant.  But  little  more  need 
be  added. 

The  premises  are  unsound ;  for, 

1. — The  Jewish  polity  was  not  a  church  in  the  New 
Testament  sense  of  the  term.  The  Greek  word  ekklesia, 
which  is  translated  church,  means  not  only  an  organized 
religious  assembly,  but  any  assembly — even  one  gathered 
together  for  disorderly  and  riotous  purposes.  Thus  the 
mob  in  Ephesus,  which  filled  the  whole  city  with  con- 
fusion, is  called  an  ekklesia.  "  Some,  therefore,  cried  one 
thing  and  some  another ;  for  the  assembly  (ekklisia)  was 
confused,"  Acts  xix.  32.  No  argument,  therefore,  can  be 
drawn  from  the  fact  that  Stephen  speaks  of  the  church 
(ekklesia)  in  the  wilderness.  The  same  Greek  term  is 
applied  frequently  to  the  people  of  Israel,  especially  in 
the  Septuagint ;  and  it  is  always  translated  by  an  Eng- 
lish word  corresponding  to  congregation,  assembly,  etc. 
Stephen's  "  ekklesia  in  the  wilderness,"  then,  was  the 
people  of  Israel  gathered  in  an  assembly  around  the  base 
of  the  mount,  or  the  people  congregated  for  their  marches, 
etc.  If  the  translation  of  the  Greek  word  ekklesia  as 
applied  to  local  societies  of  Christ's  people  had  been 
give»  in  our  present  English  version,  the  error  which 
19 


290  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS, 

we  are  now  combating,  and  others  of  a  similar  nature, 
could  not  maintain  such  a  fast  hold  upon  men's  minds. 
The  Jewish  nation,  as  scattered  about  in  Palestine,  could 
not  be  called  an  assembly,  and  ekklesia  means  an  assem- 
bly or  congregation.  The  term  ekklesia  was  never  ap- 
plied to  the  Israelites  until  after  the  institution  of  the 
Passovrer,  and  always  has  reference  to  them  as  an  assem- 
bly. Let  our  brethren,  then,  substitute  for  the  word 
church,  to  which  mystical  and  superstitious  notions  are 
attached,  the  word  assembly,  and  their  proposition  will 
appear  absurd  to  themselves.  The  Christian  organized 
worshipping  assembly,  and  the  Jewish  nation  not  organ- 
ized as  a  worshipping  assembly,  the  same  church  of  God 
under  different  dispensations!  No  man  will  speak  such 
nonsense  when  he  has  a  clear  understanding  of  the 
meaning  of  the  terms. 

That  the  Jewish  nation,  in  possessing  the  lively  or- 
acles, possessed  the  only  true  religion,  is  granted  ;  that 
many  of  them  worshipped  God  in  sincerity,  and  like 
Abraham,  trusted  in  a  Saviour  to  come,  is  not  denied ; 
nay,  we  may  maintain  that  the  Jewish  theocracy  was  in 
a  certain  sense  the  organized  tl  people  of  God,"  and  yet 
deny  emphatically  that  the  Jewish  nation- -was  an  organ- 
ized assembly  or  church  of  God.  There  never  was  a 
"  church"  on  earth,  in  the  New  Testament  sense,  until 
that  at  Jerusalem  was  organized  on  the  day  of  Pentecost. 
All  else  anterior  was  preparatory  to  this. 

2. — If  the  Jewish  nation  was  a  church  of  God,  it  was 
not  the  same  as  the  Christian  Church,  because, 


INFANT    BAPTISM    CANNOT    BE    SUSTAINED.         291 

1st.  It  was  a  type  of  it,  and  the  type  and  the  antitype 
cannot  be  the  same. 

2d.  Christ  and  Paul  speak  of  the  Jewish  nation  as 
having-  no  connection  with  the  church  of  God.  In  John 
\v.  1  9,  he  says  to  his  disciples,  "  Because  ye  are  not  of 
<!i<j  world,  but  /  have  chosen  you  out  of  the  world,  ther<  - 
fore  the  world  hatuth  you."  Now  these  disciples  were 
men  in  a-ood  Standing  in  what  our  brethren  call  the 
"  Jewish  Church  ;"  were  the  church  of  God  and  the 
world  then  the  same  ?  And  wras  it  a  characteristic  of 
the  true  church  to  hate  Christ  and  those  whom  he  had 
selected  to  be  his  followers  ?  Again,  in  Matt,  xviii.,  in 
the  direction  he  gives  to  his  disciples  for  the  settlement 
of  personal  difficulties,  after  requiring  them  to  seek  an 
interview  with  the  offending  brother,  themselves  alone, 
and  if  unsuccessful,  to  take  one  or  two  more  with  them, 
he  adds  :  "  And  if  he  shall  neglect  to  hear  them,  tell  it 
unto  the  church  ;  but  if  he  neglect  to  hear  the  church, 
let  him  be  unto  thee  as  a  heathen  man  and  a  publican." 
Now  the  church  of  Christ  at  Jerusalem  had  not  yet  been 
organized  ;  did  Christ  mean  to  say  then,  tell  it  to  the 
Jewish  authorities !  Paul  makes  a  distinction  between 
"  the  Jews'  religion"  and  "  the  church  of  God  :"  "  For 
ye  have  heard  of  my  conversation  in  time  past  in  the 
Jcivs'  religion,  how  that  beyond  measure  I  persecuted 
the  church  of  God,  and  wasted  it,"  Gal.  i.  13.  And  this 
opposition  to  the  church  of  God  did  not  originate  in 
ignorance  of  the  Jews'  religion,  or  in  a  depraved  charac- 
ter which  disqualified  him  for  good  standing  in  the  Jews' 
communion.     He  himself  informs  us  to  the  contrary: 


292  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

I  "profited  in  the  Jews'  religion  above  many,  my  equals 
in  mine  own  nation,  being  more  exceedingly  zealous  of 
the  traditions  of  my  fathers,"  v.  14.  •'  If  any  man  think- 
eth  that  he  hath  whereof  he  might  trust  in  the  flesh,  I 
more  :  circumcised  the  eighth  day,  of  the  stock  of  Israel, 
oi'  the  tribe  of  Benjamin,  a  Hebrew  of  the  Hebrews  ;  as 
touching  the  law,  a  pharisee;  concerning  zeal  'perse- 
cuting the  church  ;  touching  the  righteousness  which  is 
in  the  law,  blameless,"  Phil.  iii.  4,  etc. 

3d.  The  Jewish  community,  if  a  church,  was  not  the 
same  as  the  church  of  Christ,  because  men  were  con- 
verted from  the  Jewish  as  well  as  from  the  Pagan 
"  church"  before  they  were  permitted  to  join  the  Chris- 
tian Church.  Christ  said  to  Nicodemus,  a  man  occupy- 
ing a  high  official  station  in  the  so-called  Jewish  Church, 
"  Except  a  man  be  born  again  he  cannot  see  the  king- 
dom of  God  ;"  and  John  rejected  scribes  and  pharisees, 
though  they  were  in  good  standing  in  the  "  JeAvish 
Church."  Many  of  the  writers  on  the  other  side  of  the 
question,  Dr.  Summers  among  them,  quote  the  language 
of  Paul,  Rom.  xi.,  in  regard  to  the  good  olive  tree,  and 
the  wild  olive,  as  proof  conclusive  to  establish  the  "  iden- 
tity of  the  church  under  the  different  dispensations ;" 
but  it  would  never  have  been  construed  as  they  under- 
stand it,  if  it  were  not  needed  for  the  support  of  infant 
baptism.  The  apostle  is  describing  the  advantages  of 
the  Jews,  possessing  as  they  did  the  lively  oracles,  over 
the  Gentiles,  who  had  been  destitute  of  all  spiritual  cul- 
tivation and  advantage.  The  former  he  compares  to  a 
cultivated  olive  tree,  and  the  latter  to  one  wild  by  nature. 


INFANT   BAPTISM    CANNOT    BE    SUSTAINED.         293 

The  advantage  of  the  Jew  over  the  Gentile  consisted 
chiefly  in  the  fact  that  God  had  give  to  him  the  revela- 
tion of  his  will.  "  What  advantage  then  hath  the  Jew, 
or  what  profit  is  there  in  circumcision  ?  Much  every 
way — chiefly  because  that  unto  them  were  committed 
the  oracles  of  God,"  Rom.  iii.  1.  The  majority  of  the 
Jews,  however,  having  misimproved  their  privileges,  God 
had  withdrawn  them,  and  conferred  them  upon  the  Gen- 
tiles. To  express  it  in  the  language  of  the  distinguished 
pedobaptist,  Dr.  Albert  Barnes,  "  The  meaning  here  is 
that  the  Gentiles  had  been  like  the  wild  olive,  unfruitful 
in  holiness ;  that  they  had  been  uncultivated  by  the  in- 
stitutions of  true  religion,  and  consequently  had  grown 
up  in  the  wildness  of  sin  and  nature.  The  Jews  had 
been  like  a  cultivated  olive  long  under  the  training  and 
blessing  of  God." 

Now  when  we  deny  that  the  churches  were  the  same 
under  different  dispensations,  we  grant  that  true  religion 
was  the  same  from  Adam  to  Christ,  though  more  dis- 
tinctly developed  and  clearly  understood  from  time  to 
time  as  successive  revelations  from  heaven  were  imparted 
to  men. 

3. — But  if  we  should  grant  that  the  Jewish  nation, 
and  the  Christian  Church  were  the  same  organization 
under  different  dispensations,  our  brethren  would  be 
no  nearer  to  proving  their  infant  baptism  ;  for  infants 
were  not  admitted  to  the  "  Jewish  Church"  by  circum- 
cision. 

1st.  They  were  horn  into  "  the  church,"  and  not  ad- 
mitted to  it. 


294  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

2d.  Circumcision  did  not  admit  them  to,  but  kept 
them  into  church-membership.  "  And  the  circumcised 
man-child,  whose  flesh  of  his  foreskin  is  not  circumcised, 
that  soul  shall  be  cut  off  from  his  people  ;  he  hath  broken 
my  covenant,"  Gen.  xvii.  14.  Circumcision  was,  there- 
fore, not  an  initiating  ordinance. 

3d.  Upon  the  premises,  females  were  not  members  of 
the  church  at  all.  The  whole  "Jewish  Church"  was 
composed  entirely  of  males  and  slaves !  If,  therefore, 
you  could  prove  every  thing  else,  you  would  still  lack  a 
warrant  for  the  baptism  of  female  infants. 

4th.  We  have  already  proved  that  circumcision  was 
not  the  initiating  ordinance  into  the  "  Jewish  Church  ;" 
but  one  thing  more  is  necessary  to  put  the  finishing 
touch  to  the  refutation  of  this  branch  of  our  brethren's 
argument:  Baptism  is  not  the  initiating  ordinance 
into  the  Christian  Church.  No  one  can  be  scriptural  ly 
a  member  of  one  of  Christ's  churches  without  baptism  ; 
yet  one  may  be  baptized  and  still  be  no  member  of  a 
church.  Baptism  prepares  one  for  admission  to  a 
church ;  but  nothing  but  the  act '  of  the  church  re- 
ceiving him  into  her  fellowship,  can  constitute  him  a 
member.  Thus  the  Ethiopian  Eunuch  was  baptized  by 
Philip  in  the  "desert,"  but  he  was  not  admitted  into  any 
church. 

So  the  argument  that  baptism  takes  the  place  of  cir- 
cumcision, from  the  fact  that  they  wTere  both  initiating 
ordinances,  falls  to  the  ground. 

4. — Besides,  that  baptism  did  not  come  in  the  place 
of  circumcision,  is  shown : 


INFANT    BAPTISM    CANNOT    BE    SUSTAINED.         295 

1st.  Because  the  Bible  nowhere  says  so.  On  this 
point  the  Avord  of  God  is  profoundly  silent.  This  silence 
.is  inexplicable  upon  the  supposition  that  God  designed 
one  positive  institution  to  give  place  to  another.  How, 
then,  do  our  brethren  know  that  this  substitution  has 
taken  place  ?  Do  they  learn  it  from  the  practice  of  the 
apostles  and  primitive  Christians  ? 

2d.  The  conduct  of  the  apostles  and  primitive  Chris- 
tians, on  certain  important  occasions,  shows  that  they 
had  neArer  heard  that  baptism  had  come  into  the  room 
of  circumcision.  Peter  kneAv  nothing  about  it,  or  other- 
wise Avhen  they  of  the  circumcision  contended  Avith  him, 
because  he  Avent  in  to  men  un circumcised,  (Acts  xi.,)  in- 
stead of  rehearsing  the  matter  from  the  beginning,  and 
expounding  it  by  order  to  them,  and  shoAving  Iioav  God 
taught  him  to  consider  Cornelius  and  his  household  not 
common  and  unclean,  he  would  have  cut  the  matter 
short  by  reminding  them  :  "  Brethren,  do  you  not  knoAv 
that  baptism  has  come  in  the  room  of  circumcision,  and 
that,  therefore,  those  Avho  have  been  baptized  cannot  be 
considered  uncircumcised  and  unclean?1'  The  church 
at  Antioch  had  heard  nothing  about  it,  or  else,  when 
certain  men,  which  came  down  from  Judea,  taught  them 
that  except  they  be  circumcised,  after  the  manner  of 
Moses,  they  could  not  be  saved,  (Acts  xv.,)  they  Avould 
not  have  found  it  necessary  to  send  Paul  and  Barnabas 
to  Jerusalem,  for  a  solution  of  the  question.  Paul  and 
Barnabas,  and  the  apostles,  elders  and  brethren  at  Jeru- 
salem, knew  nothing  of  this  substitution  of  baptism  in 
the  place  of  circumcision  ;  else  how  natural  to  state  the 


296  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

fact,  and  thus  silence  the  Judaizing  teachers  in  the  be- 
ginning. And  how  unreasonable  that  they  should  have 
held  a  council  in  Jerusalem  on  the  subject,  and  that 
the}7  should  have  written  a  letter  to  the  brethren  at  An- 
tioch  containing  no  allusion  to  this  substitution,  when 
that  one  statement,  of  itself,  would  have  been  a  decisive 
and  satisfactory  solution  of  the  whole  difficulty.  To 
see,  also,  that  Paul  remained  profoundly  ignorant  to  the 
very  last,  read  Acts  xxi.  20-26.  Neander,  the  pedo- 
baptist  historian,  takes  the  same  view  of  these  passages 
that  we  do.  "  If  we  wish  to  ascertain  from  whom  this 
institution  (infant  baptism)  was  originated,  we  should 
say,  certainly,  not  immediately  from  Christ  himself. 
Was  it  from  the  primitive  church  in  Palestine,  from  an 
injunction  given  by  the  earlier  apostles?  But  among 
the  Jewish  Christians,  circumcision  was  held  as  a  seal 
of  the  covenant,  and  hence  they  had  so  much  less  occa- 
sion to  make  use  of  another  dedication  for  their  children. 
Could  it  then  have  been  Paul,  who  first,  among  heathen 
Christians,  introduced  this  alteration,  by  the  use  of  bap- 
tism ?  But  this  would  agree  least  of  all,  with  the  pecu- 
liar characteristics  of  this"  apostle.  He,  who  says  of 
himself,  that  '  Christ  sent  him  not  to  baptize,  but  to 
preach  the  gospel ;'  he  who  always  kept  his  eyes  fixed 
on  one  thing,  justification  by  faith,  and  so  carefully 
avoided  everything  which  could  give  a  handle  or  sup- 
port to  the  notion  of  a  justification  by  outward  things, 
how  could  he  have  set  up  infant  baptism  against  the  cir- 
cumcision that  continued  to  be  practiced  by  the  Jewish 
Christians  ?     In  this  case,  thv  dispute  carried  on  with 


INFANT    BAPTISM    CANNOT    BE    SUSTAINED.  297 

the  Judaizing  party,  as  to  the  necessity  of  circumcision, 
would  easily  have  given  an  opportunity  of  introducing 
this  substitute  into  the  controversy,  if  it  had  really  ex- 
isted." Plant,  and  Tr.  of  Ch.,  p.  102. 

That  baptism  did  not  come  in  the  room  of  circum- 
cision is  shown, 

3d.  Because  those  who  had  been  circumcised  were 
baptized,  and  some  who  had  been  baptized  were  circum- 
cised. Christ  and.  all  his  apostles  had  been  circumcised 
in  their  infancy,  yet  they  were  baptized  subsequently ; 
and  Timothy,  a  "  disciple,"  whose  mother  was  a  Jewess, 
and  his  father  a  Greek,  Paul  •  •  took  and  circumcised, 
because  of  the  Jews  which  were  in  those  quarters," 
though  he  had  been  previously  baptized.  (Acts  xvi. 
1-3.)  How  is  it  possible  to  reconcile  these  things  with 
the  fiction  that  baptism  has  taken  the  place  of  circum- 
cision ? 

5. — Finally,  if  we  were  to  grant  "  the  essential  iden- 
tity of  the  church  under  the  different  dispensations,"  and 
were  to  admit  that  it  is  lawful  to  infer  that  a  rite  in  one 
has  taken  the  place  of  a  rite  in  the  other,  the  question 
is,  where  are  we  to  stop  in  our  inferences  ?  If  the 
"Church  of  England"  should  infer  the  union  of  church. 
and  state  from  the  Jewish  theocracy — if  the  Pope  of 
Rome  should,  on  the  same  ground,  maintain  that  one 
man  should,  after  the  model  of  the  Jewish  high  priest, 
be  at  the  head  of  "  the  church" — that  there  are  various 
orders  of  the  ministiy,  because  there  were  various  orders 
of  priests — that  the  sacrifice  of  the  mass  is  scriptural, 
because  the  priests  in  the  "  Jewish  Church"  offered  sacri- 


298  BAPTISM   IN   ITS   MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

flees  for  the  sins  of  the  people — that  the  Pope  is  infal- 
lible, because  the  high  priest,  by  consulting  Urim,  de- 
livered oracles — that  there  must  be  seven  sacraments, 
"  because  the  number  seven  makes  a  conspicuous  figure 
in  the  Hebrew  ritual" — that  women  can  baptize,  because 
in  the  Jewish  Church  mothers  circumcised  their  infants 
(Ex.  iv.  25) — if  English  Episcopalians,  and  others  who 
affiliate  with  them,  should  advocate  the  wearing  of  can- 
onical habits,  and  the  imposition  of  tithes  for  the  sup- 
port of  the  ministry,  upon  our  principles,  what  reply 
could  we  make  to  them?  These  all  rest  upon  the  same 
foundation  with  infant  baptism,  and  are  supported  and 
defended  by  the  same  arguments.  Consequently,  we 
have  found,  that  whenever  a  pedobaptist  encounters  a 
Romanist,  he  is  sure  to  be  vanquished  unless  he  aban- 
dons his  own  ground,  and  plants  himself  upon  that  oc- 
cupied by  the  Baptists. 

What  relations  all  the  previous  dispensations  bore  to 
the  Christian — why,  in  the  sovereign  purpose  of  God, 
four  thousand  years  were  permitted  to  pass  in  the  world's 
history,  before  the  advent  of  Christ  and  the  establish- 
ment of  his  kingdom,  are  interesting  questions;  but 
they  have  no  necessary  bearing  upon  the  present  con- 
troversy, and  their  discussion  may  be  omitted  here. 
It  is  enough  that  we  have  shown,  that  the  "Jewish 
Church"  and  the  Christian  Church  were  not  the  same 
under  different  dispensations,  and  that  if  they  were,  that 
fact  could  avail  our  brethren  nothing  in  the  present 
argument. 


ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY.  299 


CHAPTER  IV. 


ECCLESIASTICAL     HISTORY. 


It  has  not  been  my  intention  to  follow  the  advocates 
of  infant  baptism,  beyond  the  arguments  which  they  de- 
duce from  the  Bible.  If  I  have  proved  that  the  word  of 
God  is  profoundly  silent  on  the  subject,  I  have  established 
the  proposition,  that  it  is  not  a  scriptural  institution. 
Even  though  in  their  researches  into  ecclesiastical  history 
they  could  trace  it  up  to  the  very  times  of  the  apostles, 
it  would  avail  them  nothing,  unless  they  could  prove  that 
it  had  received  apostolic  sanction :  for  Paul  testified  : 
"  The  mystery  of  iniquity  doth  already  work ;  only  he 
who  now  letteth,  will  let,  until  he  be  taken  out  of  the 
way."  2  Thess.  ii.  7,  and  1  John.  iv.  3 ;  "  and  every 
spirit  that  confesseth  not  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the 
flesh  is  not  of  God:  and  this  is  that  spirit  of  antichrist, 
whereof  ye  have  heard  that  it  should  come  ;  and  even 
now  already  is  it  in  the  world."  But  even  this  they  can- 
not do.  The  most  important  links  in  their  chain  are 
entirely  wanting.  For  more  than  two  hundred  years 
after  the  time  of  Christ,  ecclesiastical  history  shows  not 
a  trace  of  infant  baptism.  Not  until  six  or  eight  genera- 
tions had  passed  away  since  the  time  of  Christ  and  his 
apostles — not  until  the  notion  prevailed  that  baptism  is 
essential  to  salvation,  do  ave  ever  find  the  ordinance  ad- 


300  BAPTISM    IX    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

ministered  to  infants  ;  and  then  not  universally.  I  design 
to  do  no  more  than  to  prove  these  assertions,  by  quoting 
chiefly  from  one  of  the  greatest  of  modern  church  histo- 
rians, the  pedobaptist  Neander.  And  I  do  so  not  to  indi- 
cate that  I  indorse  all  his  sentiments,  but  to  show  that 
infant  baptism  is  not  a  scriptural  institution;  and  how, 
in  his  opinion,  "  the  church"  "  made  it  out  in  another 
way."  My  first  extract  will  be  from  his  "  Planting  and 
Training  of  the  Christian  Church." 

"As  baptism  was  closely  united  with  a  conscious  entrance  on 
Christian  communion,  faith  and  baptism  were  always  connected 
with  one  another ;  and  thus  it  is  in  the  highest  degree  probable 
that  baptism  was  performed  only  in  instances  where  both  could 
meet  together,  and  that  the  practice  of  infant  baptism  was  un- 
known at  this  period.  We  cannot  infer  the  existence  of  infant 
baptism  from  the  instance  of  the  baptism  of  whole  families,  for 
the  passage  in  1  Cor.  xvl  15,  shows  the  fallacy  of  such  a  conclu- 
sion, as  from  that  it  appears  that  the  whole  family  of  Stephanas, 
who  were  baptized  by  Paul,  consisted  of  adults.  That,  not  till 
so  late  a  period  as  (at  least,  certainly,  earlier  than)  Irenseus,  a 
trace  of  infant  baptism  appears,  and  that  it  first  became  recog- 
nized as  an  apostolic  tradition  in  the  course  of  the  third  century, 
is  evidence  rather  against  than  for  the  admission  of  its  apostolic 
origin ;  especially,  since,  in  the  spirit  of  the  age  wheD  Chris- 
tianity appeared,  there  were  many  elements  which  must  have 
been  favorable  to  the  introduction  of  infant  baptism — the  same 
elements  fromwhich  proceeded  the  notion  of  the  magical  effects 
of  outward  baptism,  the  notion  of  its  absolute  necessity  for  sal- 
vation ;  the  notion  which  gave  rise  to  the  mythus  that  the  apos- 
tles baptized  the  Old  Testament  saints  in  hades.  How  very 
much  must  infant  baptism  have  corresponded  with  such  a  ten- 
dency, if  it  had  been  favored  by  tradition !  It  might,  indeed, 
be  alleged,  on  the  other  hand,  that  after  infant  baptism  had 


INFANT    BAPTISM    CANNOT    BE    SUSTAINED.         301 

long  been  recognized  as  an  apostolic  tradition,  many  other  causes 
hindered  its  universal  introduction,  and  the  same  causes 
might  still  earlier  stand  in  the  way  of  its  spread,  although  a  prac- 
tiic  sanctioned  by  the  apostles.  But  these  causes  could  not 
have  acted  in  this  manner,  in  the  post-apostolic  age;  .  .  .  . 
and,  if  we  wish  to  ascertain  from  whom  such  an  institution  was 
originated,  we  should  say,  certainly  not  immediately  from  Chrisl 
himself.  Was  it  from  the  primitive  church  in  Palestine,  from  an 
injunction  given  by  the  earlier  apostles.  But  among  the  Jew- 
ish Christians,  circumcision  was  held  as  a  seal  of  the  covenant, 
and  hence,  they  had  so  much  less  occasion  to  make  use  of  an- 
other dedication  for  their  children.  Could  it,  then,  have  been 
Paul,  who  first,  among  heathen  Christians,  introduced  this 
alteration  by  the  use  of  baptism  ?  But  this  would  agree  least 
of  all  with  the  peculiar  Christian  characteristics  of  this  apos- 
tle.—Pp.  101,  102. 

We  quote  next,  more  briefly,  from  his  "  Church  His- 
tory." 

"  It  is  certain  that  Christ  did  not  ordain  infant  baptism  ;  he 
left,  indeed,  much  which  was  not  needful  for  salvation,  to  the 
free  development  of  the  Christian  spirit^  without  here  appoint- 
ing binding  laws.  We  cannot  prove  that  the  apostles  ordained 
infant  baptism." — P.  198. 

He  goes  on,  then,  to  inform  us  from  what  "the  cus- 
tom of  infant  baptism  proceeded." 

"We  find  here  the  essentially  Christian  notion,  from  which 
infant  baptism  would  derive  itself  spontaneously,  the  more 
Christianity  penetrated  into  domestic  life  ;  namely,  that  Christ, 
by  means  of  that  divine  life  which  he  communicated  to  human 
nature,  and  revealed  in  it,  has  sanctified  that  nature  from  the 
very  first  seed  of  its  development From  this  idea, 


302  BAPTISM   IN   ITS    MODE   AND    SUBJECTS. 

founded  on  the  internal  feelings  of  Christianity,  which  obtained 
an  influence  over  men's  dispositions,  the  custom  of  infant  bap- 
tism proceeded But  whilst,  on  the  one  hand,  the 

doctrine  of  the  corruption  and  guilt  inherited  by  human  nature, 
as  the  consequence  of  the  first  transgression,  was  reduced  into 
a  more  systematic  and  distinct  form,  which  was  particularly 
the  case  in  the  Xorth  African  Church  ;  on  the  other  hand,  from 
want  of  a  proper  distinction  between  the  external  and  internal 
things  of  baptism  (the  baptism  of  water,  and  the  baptism  of 
the  Spirit,)  the  idea  was  forever  gaining  ground,  and  becoming 
more  firmly  fixed,  that,  without  outward  baptism  no  one  could 
be  freed  from  that  inherited  guilt,  saved  from  the  eternal  pun- 
ishment which  threatened  him,  or  brought  to  eternal  happi- 
ness ;  and  while  the  idea  of  the  magical  effects  of  the  sacrament 
was  constantly  obtaining  more  and  more  sway,  the  theory  of 
the  unconditional  necessity  of  infant  baptism  developed  itself 
from  that  idea."— Pp.  199-200. 

To  the  testimony  of  Neander,  I  add  that  of  Gieseler, 
another  pedobaptist  historian,  whose  accuracy  is  indorsed 
by  Professor  Stuart,  of  Androver,  and  Professor  Hodge 
of  Princeton.  He  says,  in  his  Text-Book  of  Ec.  Hist., 
vol.  l,p.  105,  "The  baptism  of  infants  (A.  D.  117-193) 
was  not  a  universal  custom,  and  was  sometimes  even  ex- 
pressly discountenanced;"  and,  on  page  159,  "The 
baptism  of  infants  became  now  (A.  D.  193-324)  more 
common." 

I  will  close  these  citations  of  pedobaptist  authorities 
with  an  extract  from  the  " North  British  Review" 
(August,  1852,)  the  organ  of  the  Presbyterianism  of 
Scotland.  It  is  part  of  an  article  on  Liturgical  Reform 
in  the  Church  of  England,"  said  to  have  been  written 
by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Hanna,  the  son-in-law  of  Dr.  Chalmers : 


CONCLUSION.  303 

"  Scripture  knows  nothing  of  the  baptism  of  infants.  There 
is  absolutely  not  a  trace  of  it  to  be  found  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment ....  History  confirms  the  inference  drawn  from 
the  sacred  volume.  Infant  baptism  cannot  be  traced  higher 
than  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  and  even  then  it  was 
not  universal.  Some,  indeed,  have  argued,  that  in  the  silence 
of  Scripture,  it  is  fair  to  presume  that  a  custom  whose  existence 
is  sure  in  the  second  century,  must  have  descended  from  the 
apostles ;  but  the  presumption  is  wholly  the  other  way." 


CONCLUSION. 

We  have  thus  completed  the  task  we  have  assumed ; 
with  what  success,  let  the  reader  judge.  In  our  Part 
First  we  endeavored  to  show,  that  nothing  but  immer- 
sion is  baptism  :  in  Part  Second,  that  there  is  not  a 
trace  of  infant  baptism  in  the  Scriptures.  If,  then,  in- 
fant bajitism  is  without  scriptural  authority,  how  much 
more  is  that  ceremony  which  our  brethren  have  substi- 
tuted for  the  mode  of  God's  ordinance. 

My  dear  reader,  do  you  love  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  ? 
And  are  you  ready  at  all  times  to  show  your  love  by 
your  obedience  to  his  commandments  ?  Your  parents, 
perhaps,  have  told  you  tbat  you  were  "  baptized"  in  in- 


304  BAPTISM    IN    ITS    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS. 

fancy.  Are  you  satisfied  with  this,  when  the  evidence 
is  so  plain  that  your  "  dedication"  was  an  unauthorized 
ceremony,  and  that,  consequently,  you  have  never  yet 
"  put  on  Christ  in  baptism  ?"  If  you  have  doubts  on 
:iie  subject,  do  you  silence  those  doubts,  and  quiet  your 
( 'iiscience,  by  arguments  drawn  from  human  expedi- 
ency ?  Christ  says,  if  ye  love  me  keep  my  command- 
ments May  God  show  you  and  me  our  duty,  and  give  us 
grace  to  discharge  it. 

I  announced  in  my  introduction,  the  principles  which 
ought  to  govern  me  in  this  discussion.  If  I  ha^ve  viola- 
ted them,  let  those  violations  be  exposed  and  condemned  : 
if  I  have  convinced  you  that  you  are  wrong  in  opinion 
or  in  practice,  let  not  your  objection  to  me  personally,  or 
to  the  manner  in  which  I  have  discussed  the  subject,  pre- 
vent you  from  embracing  and  obeying  the  truth.  And 
may  the  Lord  hasten  the  day  when  all  who  love  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  shall  "  see  eye  to  eye,"  and  "  be  of 
one  heart  and  one  mind." 


i  V. 


H 


an 


